Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Introducing "No-Moore's Law"

Author: Steve J

Date: 22:40:23 02/27/03

Go up one level in this thread

On February 27, 2003 at 22:47:20, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On February 27, 2003 at 21:30:09, Jeremiah Penery wrote:
>>On February 27, 2003 at 20:45:54, Steve J wrote:
>>>  One point I was trying to make was that every reduction in size is done
>>>with an exponential increase in cost.  We will reach a time when the
>>>physics of very small devices will not allow for transistor that can be
>>>turned "on" and "off" at any reasonable cost.
>>Could you explain this?  Switching cost goes down with smaller feature size, so
>>why should it ever become prohibitive?
>He is talking about "cost == $$$"  The smaller you make things, the harder it
>is to make them, and the more it costs, in terms of simple dollars...

  Yes, that is what I meant to say.

>>>Given that this is related
>>>to the size of the atom, it does not make much of a difference if the
>>>material is Silicon, GaAs, InP, or more exotic materials.
>>Of course, atoms are not all the same size.  The absolute difference in size is
>>tiny, but the relative difference may be several percent or more.  If you go
>>from molecular to atomic sizes, the difference can be an order of magnitude or

  I agree.
  Many atoms are in the range of 2.5 to 3.5 Angstroms (i.e., 10 E-10 meters).
as feature sizes get smaller, a single atom mismatch can represent a
large percentage of the total transistor width.


This page took 0.01 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.