Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 20:48:18 10/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2003 at 22:48:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 16, 2003 at 19:11:20, Dann Corbit wrote: >>On October 16, 2003 at 18:49:55, Anthony Cozzie wrote: [snip] >>>1. Moore's law is NOT A LAW. Its going to come to an end by 2020, if not >>>earlier. >> >>Not a chance. It will continue to accelerate. Of course, I could be wrong. > >It can't possibly continue to accelerate. Everything is limited by C. Nothing >can propagate faster than that. So we are stuck with shrinking to shorten >distances so that C doesn't kill us. But then we are limited by how far we >can shrink things. IE we now do traces that are a few dozen atoms wide. We >won't get to 1-atom widths. And we _certainly_ won't get below that. Too many assumptions. Imagine (for instance) if we grow IC's that are 3-dimentional. Suppose (for instance, that instead of making 10 nanometer traces on a 1x1 cm flat face, we are making 10 nm thick slices linked together in a 1x1x1 cm cube. Now the compute power is suddenly 1e8 times larger. Now, that's just one sort of work-around. I imagine that there are many people a lot more clever than I am that can think of even better solutions. (Using DNA to compute is a popular idea that may have merit). When we run out of ways to make the chip faster, why not just add more chips? So instead of 1 50 GHz chip, why not use 1000 10 GHz chips? I would be very surprised if chips fail to follow Moore's law for the next 30 years. [snip]
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.