Author: martin fierz
Date: 16:09:33 10/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2003 at 14:41:10, Dann Corbit wrote: >On October 17, 2003 at 07:24:49, martin fierz wrote: > >>On October 16, 2003 at 23:48:18, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>sounds good at first, but think about this: today's processors generate >>something between 10 and 100 watt of heat that you need to remove. since your >>idea explicitly attempts to use today's technology, that would mean that you >>also generate 1e8 times more heat. 1GW, that's about what an atomic power plant >>delivers... now that will need one hell of a cooler :-) >>ok, so you say you will go to lower voltages in the future, as we have done in >>the past. but there is a limit there too, which is given by the band gap of >>silicon. you can't go lower than that, and we are already quite close IIRC. >> >>>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? >> >>because you are increasing the distances again. and many tasks are not easily >>parallelizable (e.g. chess...) >> >>>I would be very surprised if chips fail to follow Moore's law for the next 30 >>>years. >> >>i would be very surprised if they do. the main drivers of moore's law over the >>years have been miniaturization, miniaturization and miniaturization. and that >>is very definitely going to end in the near rather than in the far future. >>moore's law is an empirical observation. the laws of physics are a bit more >>solid than that :-) >> >>you can bet your money on quantum computers, DNA computers or other fancy stuff. >>IMO that's the only hope for moore's law in around 10 years time or so. and i >>certainly won't bet my money on that kind of sci-fi stuff! > >Read this (if you have not read it already): >http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1 yeah, i did. during my physics study, i once stumbled across a game called "bullshit bingo", which works as follows: all persons listening to a seminar get a grid (chessboard-like) with "hype"-words on it. every time the speaker says one of the words on your sheet, you cross it out. the first person to have a row of the grid crossed out completely is to stand up and shout "bullshit!" - the reasoning is that if too many of these hype-terms come up then probably the guy is talking BS. i guess i would have been able to shout "BS!" after a minute or two of reading this :-) cheers martin
This page took 0 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.