I don't understand your point. The problem in America is corruption. What in your method of "elections canada" guarantees there won't be any corruption in the voting process. How could you possibly point to an arbitrary group of people and say "Ta dah! These people will never be biased or policital in their duties!". Ja, right.
Common misconception. Electrons don't move at the speed of light. In fact, electrons aren't the primary charge carrier in half the transistors in the chip. Holes are (P vs. N).
Charge carriers propagate at about the speed of molasses. Go read this website, it is great:
http://amasci.com/miscon/eleca.html#light
Here's an excerpt --
THE "ELECTRICITY" INSIDE OF WIRES MOVES AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT? Wrong. In metals, electric current is a flow of electrons. Many books claim that these electrons flow at the speed of light. This is incorrect. Electrons actually flow quite slowly, at speeds on the order of centimeters per minute. And in AC circuits the electrons don't really flow at all, instead they sit in place and vibrate. It's the energy in the circuit which flows fast, not the electrons. Metals are always full of movable electrons, and when the electrons at one point in the circuit are pumped, electrons in the entire loop of the circuit are forced to flow, and energy spreads almost instantly throughout the entire circuit. This happens even though the electrons move very slowly.
it is odd that he rushes to admit the original game had no character development. i disagree. the main character is the player, aka, you. everyone can remember the first time they played doom, and the impact it had on them. it probably had a more significant aspect if you played it when it was first downloadable via BBS, when no one had ever seen anything like it before.
the isolation and fear that develop inside the players head during the game could be considered a time of character development, albeit on a diet!
i would think a movie adaptation of doom could conceivably focus less on monsters and action and more on the isolation of being a lone marine on mars surrounded by hidden evil things that are hunting you. i'm thinking of films like Cube, The Quiet Earth, Solaris, 2001 (Dave Bowman's isolation), Castaway (seriously!), etc.
but it sounds like it'll be another cliche action film based on the interview.
Forget gaming addiction, how the hell does everyone deal with all that freakin' pr0n out there??? Seems like I can't log on without a good 30-60 minutes wasted on the latest site updates.
The direct application of strained silicon is the tricky part.
Yuppers.
IANAPG (I am not a process guy... er, gal) but I understand the problem is the thickness of the SOI layer for smaller Tox, b/c the SOI layer gets smaller faster than Tox. Making this uniform enough across 300 mm for good yeilds is a daunting process task, that's what I meant to say... Of course, I am dangerously close to talking out of my butt so I will now cease and desist.
It is so impressive that two people did this in 1961! I bet there aren't 10 people alive today that could reproduce this coding feat with the same hardware. Take away gdb and msvc and most programmers crumble...
So, instead of requiring every citizen to be fully and accurately informed every day on 200+page bills, we instead use representatives. "I don't know gov't, but I trust that Joe's views are close to mine, and that he'll represent me accurately."
But didn't you catch the irony? 57% of house bills were delivered to the members within hours of the vote (a new GOP tactic, quite effective), which means have the votes were on bills no one had read or understood!
Assuming our elected Congresspeople actually understand bills is a longshot.
Picture a bunch of citizens running around with Ak-47s trying to take on the entire US military. That' looks like...
IRAQ or AFGHANISTAN!
We don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of revolting against our military.
Unless, of course, we are all allowed to own tanks, F22s, B1 bombers, and nuclear missiles in our backyards. Maybe THEN we'd have a chance to revolt against our goverment.
As it stands today, the gun issue is purely a "get out the vote issue" and means nothing beyond partisan politics.
[[I won't even bring up the fact that only militias have the right to bear arms, not citizens. -- that's a huge flamewar right there]]
That said, please note that I can't wait to go buy an M16!!! They are SO FREAKIN' COOL. I don't mind registering it either, I'm law abiding and intelligent enough to not leave it lying around loaded.
I understand that this applies to photos purchased by the gov't (or "acquired" by the government), but thats the rub! The government can "acquire" anything it wants in the USA, and to a lesser extent, countries that it is allies with or has on a leash.
Doesn't Ikonos ring any bells?
We need more non-allied countries to start launching private satellites that anyone can purchase from or view for free. Wouldn't that be a kick in the ass?
Thanks for attacking me when I offered a truce, flameboy.
Linear region is when the device is switching, between Cutoff and Saturation. You really don't know anything about a CMOS transistor, do you? Man, you must be lying about your job, 'cause I fell for it for a minute there.
I just realized the problem: you're A FUCKING ASIC designer! LOL! No wonder you don't know what I'm talking about! I was gonna say that some day you'll get a real job where this stuff really matters, but nobody would hire someone who doesn't even understand what the linear region of operation is! LOL!
If you'd just check the thread history without being angry
Apologies, my bad. I hear this from my wife once a week (just replace "thread history" with something else). Must be the Italian blood.
Ok, I'm beating a dead horse, but I'm doing it cheerfully (that didn't sound right). If you still are interested in talking about this, cool, if not, I don't blame you...
Problem statement --
An optical shrink within a certain limit reduces switching power invariably. Once you go 65nm, leakage skyrockets, so all bets are off... Lets just operating in the land of giants: 350-250 nm.
Example:
The 300 MHz PII (klamath) was.35 micron, and Deschutes was an optical shrink to.25 micron. Power went from 43 W to 18.6 W (see their Processor Spec Finder website). I have no idea what the leakage component of these guys was, so we can't scale perfectly.
Note that with the shrink they could lower the voltage from 2.8V to 2.0V. Even assuming leakage scales with V squared (which it doesn't), that's still a 28% reduction in voltage, a 48% reduction in V^2 and a 56% reduction in power. And this is pessimistic due to leakage. Doesn't this imply that there is power loss as a direct result of shrinkage?
Analytically --
Both the gate and diffusion caps scale linearly with W if L remains constant, otherwise the caps scale with area (one dimension vs. both dimension shrink.)
Now, doesn't this automatically guarantee a drop in _switching_ power? Rush-through is more complicated so I don't have a clear answer. I've seen it get worse due to higher current in the linear region and bad project slopes. But I do know leakage gets WORSE as the devices get smaller, and this starts to offset the reduction due to scaling (partially due to channel width decrease, partially due to heavy doping).
In practice --
Downsizing. We use smaller devices on paths with positive margin. The result? Lower power.
So I think based on these three example it is possible to demonstrate that a pure optical shrink results in lower power at the same Vcc/Freq.
Anyway, it is late and I'm enjoying procrastinating too much.
"But I'm holding out for something, anything, that supports your assertion that geometry reduction invariably reduces power, even if voltage is the same. Until such is provided you will ignored."
Let me see if I understand correctly: you're telling me an optical shrink (screw process for now), has no impact on the diffusion capacitance of a CMOS device?
Here you go little boy, run along and read this --
1996 IEEE #0278-0070 "Performance Computation for Precharacterized CMOS Gates with RC Loads"
(If you really do work for a REAL semiconductor company, they should have this or it should be free access to you.)
Section V: Calculating Power Consumption, paragraph One: "As mentioned previously, the charging/discharging component of the power dissipation is evaluated using the total net capacitance.... But for the short-circuit component of power dissipation, the load "seen by the gate" affects the regious of operation of the transistors..."
Ooooh, that burns, don't it!?
I know we didn't talk about the difference between switching and rush through, but you're still clueless.
Too bad you got modded up for misinformation. But hey, that's typical/. fashion.
Thanks for googling and regurgitating first year physics. You understand the equations, but know almost zilch about real world design, it is very obvious.
Now lets talk about the real-world design process.
I hate to repeat myself, but I'll try a little more slowly:
You have not once even attempted to define C-effecitve. C-ACTUAL is the lumped capacitve sum on the node (am I going to fast?). C-effective is the cap a driver sees and is defined as the capacitance that must be charged for the transisto t be out of the noise margin. Normally the upper and lower margin noise limits are 80%, but timing tools (are you familiar with what a timing tool is?) pick the 50% point because they don't consider which direction the transistion occurs.)
If you want to know what a timing tool is I can explain that too.
Now you can model Ceffective many ways, it depends entirely on the layout. The same lumped capacitance (excluding crosscap and MCF) can have many different Ceffectives depending on the layout.
Layout is when you actually draw the devices in the mask/metal layers, rather than a schematic. Devices have to placed somewhere, and the distance between them, and their legging, affects their capacitance (e.g. routing wire pitch and distance).
So we've covered C-effective. However, the charge required to COMPLETELY switch the rail is the C ACTUAL. This occurs during the remained of the clock cycle (assuming we aren't using pulsed logic).
This is what should be used for power.
By the way...
As the devices get smaller, they get closer, interconnect capacitance because a smaller contribution. On the latest intel processor, each one was roughly 33% of total lumped cap on a node, this is down from the p3 where interconnect was ~50%.
And like how you warn me that you might get fired! What a childish copout! You must be 16 or something! Stay in school, you seem to know a few basic things, maybe Intel will hire you some day.
Project estimates are done at the beginning of the project when you have insufficient understanding of the requirements and scope, which makes it a very bad time to do an estimate for the entire project.
This is what separates the men from the boys. Estimation of project requirements are not perfect until the project is complete, so you have no choice but to work with educated guesses.
Modern project management is an exercise in managing uncertainty.
It is easy to say how long it would take you to write a script, anyone can do that in their head: guess base on experience, multiply by x2 and have a reasonable estimate.
Now try estimating a thousands scripts (or circuits) done by hundreds of engineers of varying aptitudes that will result in a capital cost of several billion dollars over (hopefully) a few years! All of which is directly reflected in your retirement investments!
That kind of planning is real nuts-and-guts stuff that most of us well never have to wrestle with, and a "fact" like this grossly understates and misrepresents.
Programming is easy.
Planning is orders of magnitude harder by comparison.
I prefer programming, the latter makes my brainpan throb.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's hear it for the Tute Screw!
I don't understand your point. The problem in America is corruption. What in your method of "elections canada" guarantees there won't be any corruption in the voting process. How could you possibly point to an arbitrary group of people and say "Ta dah! These people will never be biased or policital in their duties!". Ja, right.
Ah, another pedant!
So all electron movement can be summed up by:
They...
a) vibrate
b) zigzag back and forth at insanely fast speeds over very, very small distances
c) drift when in an electric field over larger distances
Ja?
Common misconception. Electrons don't move at the speed of light. In fact, electrons aren't the primary charge carrier in half the transistors in the chip. Holes are (P vs. N).
Charge carriers propagate at about the speed of molasses. Go read this website, it is great:
http://amasci.com/miscon/eleca.html#light
Here's an excerpt --
THE "ELECTRICITY" INSIDE OF WIRES MOVES AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT? Wrong.
In metals, electric current is a flow of electrons. Many books claim that these electrons flow at the speed of light. This is incorrect. Electrons actually flow quite slowly, at speeds on the order of centimeters per minute. And in AC circuits the electrons don't really flow at all, instead they sit in place and vibrate. It's the energy in the circuit which flows fast, not the electrons. Metals are always full of movable electrons, and when the electrons at one point in the circuit are pumped, electrons in the entire loop of the circuit are forced to flow, and energy spreads almost instantly throughout the entire circuit. This happens even though the electrons move very slowly.
it is odd that he rushes to admit the original game had no character development. i disagree. the main character is the player, aka, you. everyone can remember the first time they played doom, and the impact it had on them. it probably had a more significant aspect if you played it when it was first downloadable via BBS, when no one had ever seen anything like it before.
the isolation and fear that develop inside the players head during the game could be considered a time of character development, albeit on a diet!
i would think a movie adaptation of doom could conceivably focus less on monsters and action and more on the isolation of being a lone marine on mars surrounded by hidden evil things that are hunting you. i'm thinking of films like Cube, The Quiet Earth, Solaris, 2001 (Dave Bowman's isolation), Castaway (seriously!), etc.
but it sounds like it'll be another cliche action film based on the interview.
Forget gaming addiction, how the hell does everyone deal with all that freakin' pr0n out there??? Seems like I can't log on without a good 30-60 minutes wasted on the latest site updates.
The direct application of strained silicon is the tricky part.
Yuppers.
IANAPG (I am not a process guy... er, gal) but I understand the problem is the thickness of the SOI layer for smaller Tox, b/c the SOI layer gets smaller faster than Tox. Making this uniform enough across 300 mm for good yeilds is a daunting process task, that's what I meant to say... Of course, I am dangerously close to talking out of my butt so I will now cease and desist.
Unfortunately SOI is hard to manufacture on 12"+ wafers with reasonable yeild, and it gets even worse because SOI scales horribly with geometry.
here's the MP3
http://audio.textfiles.com/sounds/daisy.mp3
It is so impressive that two people did this in 1961! I bet there aren't 10 people alive today that could reproduce this coding feat with the same hardware. Take away gdb and msvc and most programmers crumble...
I like your statement:
So, instead of requiring every citizen to be fully and accurately informed every day on 200+page bills, we instead use representatives. "I don't know gov't, but I trust that Joe's views are close to mine, and that he'll represent me accurately."
But didn't you catch the irony? 57% of house bills were delivered to the members within hours of the vote (a new GOP tactic, quite effective), which means have the votes were on bills no one had read or understood!
Assuming our elected Congresspeople actually understand bills is a longshot.
That's a good plan. Not bringing that up will greatly reduce the chance of making a fool of yourself.
Thanks for beating me to it!
Are you serious?
Picture a bunch of citizens running around with Ak-47s trying to take on the entire US military. That' looks like...
IRAQ or AFGHANISTAN!
We don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of revolting against our military.
Unless, of course, we are all allowed to own tanks, F22s, B1 bombers, and nuclear missiles in our backyards. Maybe THEN we'd have a chance to revolt against our goverment.
As it stands today, the gun issue is purely a "get out the vote issue" and means nothing beyond partisan politics.
[[I won't even bring up the fact that only militias have the right to bear arms, not citizens. -- that's a huge flamewar right there]]
That said, please note that I can't wait to go buy an M16!!! They are SO FREAKIN' COOL. I don't mind registering it either, I'm law abiding and intelligent enough to not leave it lying around loaded.
If these are forged, why did the White House release them?
At first I thought it was idiot Democrats trying to smear, now maybe it is idiot Republicans trying to make Democrats look bad.
I can't wait to see if anyone can demonstrate what military typewriters in 1972 were capable of proportional fonts!!!
I understand that this applies to photos purchased by the gov't (or "acquired" by the government), but thats the rub! The government can "acquire" anything it wants in the USA, and to a lesser extent, countries that it is allies with or has on a leash.
Doesn't Ikonos ring any bells?
We need more non-allied countries to start launching private satellites that anyone can purchase from or view for free. Wouldn't that be a kick in the ass?
I only listen to Rush Limbaugh, he knows everything and told me that he'd do the thinking for me, why should I go anywhere else?
--A Proud Dittohead
(Note to mods: I am SO kidding.)
Thanks for attacking me when I offered a truce, flameboy.
:)
Linear region is when the device is switching, between Cutoff and Saturation. You really don't know anything about a CMOS transistor, do you? Man, you must be lying about your job, 'cause I fell for it for a minute there.
I just realized the problem: you're A FUCKING ASIC designer! LOL! No wonder you don't know what I'm talking about! I was gonna say that some day you'll get a real job where this stuff really matters, but nobody would hire someone who doesn't even understand what the linear region of operation is! LOL!
Good luck, loser!
You mean like "lay down in front of bulldozer" instead of "lie down in front of bulldozer"... or vice versa?
//e pirating ruled!
Damn, that one issue drove me CRAZY! Fortunately I had planetfall and zork to switch off to when i got frustrated. Ahhh.... apple
Parkinson's disease, diabetes and lung fibrosis as well as recently diagnosed Alzheimer's disease."
Jeez Louise!
Who did this guy piss off upstairs??
If you'd just check the thread history without being angry
.35 micron, and Deschutes was an optical shrink to .25 micron. Power went from 43 W to 18.6 W (see their Processor Spec Finder website). I have no idea what the leakage component of these guys was, so we can't scale perfectly.
s /L 07.pdf
s .a sp?sSpec=SL28R&ProcFam=47&PkgType=ALL&SysBusSpd=AL L&CorSpd=ALL
s /L 06.pdf
Apologies, my bad. I hear this from my wife once a week (just replace "thread history" with something else). Must be the Italian blood.
Ok, I'm beating a dead horse, but I'm doing it cheerfully (that didn't sound right). If you still are interested in talking about this, cool, if not, I don't blame you...
Problem statement --
An optical shrink within a certain limit reduces switching power invariably. Once you go 65nm, leakage skyrockets, so all bets are off... Lets just operating in the land of giants: 350-250 nm.
Example:
The 300 MHz PII (klamath) was
Note that with the shrink they could lower the voltage from 2.8V to 2.0V. Even assuming leakage scales with V squared (which it doesn't), that's still a 28% reduction in voltage, a 48% reduction in V^2 and a 56% reduction in power. And this is pessimistic due to leakage. Doesn't this imply that there is power loss as a direct result of shrinkage?
Analytically --
Both the gate and diffusion caps scale linearly with W if L remains constant, otherwise the caps scale with area (one dimension vs. both dimension shrink.)
Now, doesn't this automatically guarantee a drop in _switching_ power? Rush-through is more complicated so I don't have a clear answer. I've seen it get worse due to higher current in the linear region and bad project slopes. But I do know leakage gets WORSE as the devices get smaller, and this starts to offset the reduction due to scaling (partially due to channel width decrease, partially due to heavy doping).
In practice --
Downsizing. We use smaller devices on paths with positive margin. The result? Lower power.
So I think based on these three example it is possible to demonstrate that a pure optical shrink results in lower power at the same Vcc/Freq.
Anyway, it is late and I'm enjoying procrastinating too much.
-s
Links --
http://6371.lcs.mit.edu/currentsemester/handout
http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/detail
http://6371.lcs.mit.edu/currentsemester/handout
"But I'm holding out for something, anything, that supports your assertion that geometry reduction invariably reduces power, even if voltage is the same. Until such is provided you will ignored."
Let me see if I understand correctly: you're telling me an optical shrink (screw process for now), has no impact on the diffusion capacitance of a CMOS device?
The only way I'll let you off the hook is if you admin there is a difference between Ceffective and Ctotal.
If we're mixing up terms, that's understandable, but Ceff is ABSOLUTELY NOT C-Total (lumped, crosscap or MCF).
Here you go little boy, run along and read this --
... But for the short-circuit component of power dissipation, the load "seen by the gate" affects the regious of operation of the transistors..."
1996 IEEE #0278-0070
"Performance Computation for Precharacterized CMOS Gates with RC Loads"
(If you really do work for a REAL semiconductor company, they should have this or it should be free access to you.)
Section V: Calculating Power Consumption, paragraph One:
"As mentioned previously, the charging/discharging component of the power dissipation is evaluated using the total net capacitance.
Ooooh, that burns, don't it!?
I know we didn't talk about the difference between switching and rush through, but you're still clueless.
Beyond a given point 'decision' becomes 'chance'
;-)
Very true indeed!
Too bad you got modded up for misinformation. But hey, that's typical /. fashion.
Thanks for googling and regurgitating first year physics. You understand the equations, but know almost zilch about real world design, it is very obvious.
Now lets talk about the real-world design process.
I hate to repeat myself, but I'll try a little more slowly:
You have not once even attempted to define C-effecitve. C-ACTUAL is the lumped capacitve sum on the node (am I going to fast?). C-effective is the cap a driver sees and is defined as the capacitance that must be charged for the transisto t be out of the noise margin. Normally the upper and lower margin noise limits are 80%, but timing tools (are you familiar with what a timing tool is?) pick the 50% point because they don't consider which direction the transistion occurs.)
If you want to know what a timing tool is I can explain that too.
Now you can model Ceffective many ways, it depends entirely on the layout. The same lumped capacitance (excluding crosscap and MCF) can have many different Ceffectives depending on the layout.
Layout is when you actually draw the devices in the mask/metal layers, rather than a schematic. Devices have to placed somewhere, and the distance between them, and their legging, affects their capacitance (e.g. routing wire pitch and distance).
So we've covered C-effective. However, the charge required to COMPLETELY switch the rail is the C ACTUAL. This occurs during the remained of the clock cycle (assuming we aren't using pulsed logic).
This is what should be used for power.
By the way...
As the devices get smaller, they get closer, interconnect capacitance because a smaller contribution. On the latest intel processor, each one was roughly 33% of total lumped cap on a node, this is down from the p3 where interconnect was ~50%.
And like how you warn me that you might get fired! What a childish copout! You must be 16 or something! Stay in school, you seem to know a few basic things, maybe Intel will hire you some day.
Project estimates are done at the beginning of the project when you have insufficient understanding of the requirements and scope, which makes it a very bad time to do an estimate for the entire project.
This is what separates the men from the boys. Estimation of project requirements are not perfect until the project is complete, so you have no choice but to work with educated guesses.
Modern project management is an exercise in managing uncertainty.
It is easy to say how long it would take you to write a script, anyone can do that in their head: guess base on experience, multiply by x2 and have a reasonable estimate.
Now try estimating a thousands scripts (or circuits) done by hundreds of engineers of varying aptitudes that will result in a capital cost of several billion dollars over (hopefully) a few years! All of which is directly reflected in your retirement investments!
That kind of planning is real nuts-and-guts stuff that most of us well never have to wrestle with, and a "fact" like this grossly understates and misrepresents.
Programming is easy.
Planning is orders of magnitude harder by comparison.
I prefer programming, the latter makes my brainpan throb.