Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

now-here-be t1_iv6ew6r wrote

ELI5 - why does this matter. Chips are so tiny anyways. What does a jump from say 3nm to 1nm mean for me as an end consumer? Thanks!

15

smenjas t1_iv6jv9w wrote

Smaller process nodes allow chips to perform operations faster and use less energy. So your computer or your phone can have better battery life, operate with a lower electricity bill, and run more complex software without feeling slow.

Because the distance between components is smaller, the electrical signal can reach them more quickly, allowing the clock to operate at a higher frequency.

Because there is less material for the electricity to pass through, there is less electrical resistance, so the chip uses less energy to perform the same computations as a larger process node.

The problem with making the wires smaller and closer together, is that electrons will “tunnel” through the insulating layer between them, causing the electrical signals to behave unpredictably. It is also very difficult to etch the patterns into the chips, because the size of the wires are approaching the limits of our ability to focus light accurately enough.

67

CompressionNull t1_iv7ne8k wrote

Yea but the flip side of that coin is lazy software development. Hardware is so fast now that coders don’t need to optimize code anymore, so performance for the end user does not advance as rapidly as it should.

9

xeneks t1_iv7z3mx wrote

Actually they do.

It lags the leading edge though. I think that’s due to the large time it takes to recode at simple or base levels, replacing routines or libraries or writing entire new code bases or implementing algorithms that take advantage of unique or abstracted hardware.

Having rewritten software using new codebases with new libraries or upgraded dependencies often addresses software bloat issues. If you upgrade the OS you can often run more recent apps.

Guessing mostly,

If you take a bunch of computers that is <1 yo and the best os & software you can find. The software choices often work fine, but are actually not so optimised. Sometimes they are brutal in their resource requirements.

Then you take a bunch of computers >5 yo. And you install the best os & software you can find. The software choices apply many code optimisations that actually take substantial advantage of the full set of hardware features.

It’s another reason why old hardware is amazing and always worth keeping, repairing and maintaining and even, actively using privately, professionally or commercially.

It’s why even a low end old mobile phone is worth spending hours to repair, service, and make hardware reliable on.

Apply upgraded OS or different apps, suddenly the phone is a completely different machine, not only functional, but usable and even satisfying and enjoyable to use.

This is really easy to do with PCs, that typically run windows or linux, but with phones or with Apple hardware it’s less possible due to the closed development environment.

I’ve done it using jailbroken android stacks though, and been very happy as old hardware suddenly works equal to new hardware with no additional resources or pollution and water needs, and deferred recycling costs.

When old hardware is reliably and operating consistently, or even only low cost but working well and repairable, you really warm to the manufacturers.

Source:

Personal/professional experience over 20+ years of trying to get new optimal OS & software working on old hardware, to avoid disrespecting embedded resource, material, carbon costs, water and air pollution.

Ps: 1nm… low power! Low temperature! Awesome! I’m thinking this might create the first generations of hardware for computers, phones and tablets that might be in-field functional past two decades… I hope it’s able to be adjusted to remain viable even if hardware code exploits are discovered after a decade or more of use. Aside from microcode, what other approaches are taken to make hardware reliable aside from air gaps and isolation from networks?

6

wen_mars t1_iv8r7f8 wrote

> Guessing mostly, > > If you take a bunch of computers that is <1 yo and the best os & software you can find. The software choices often work fine, but are actually not so optimised. Sometimes they are brutal in their resource requirements. > > Then you take a bunch of computers >5 yo. And you install the best os & software you can find. The software choices apply many code optimisations that actually take substantial advantage of the full set of hardware features. > > It’s another reason why old hardware is amazing and always worth keeping, repairing and maintaining and even, actively using privately, professionally or commercially.

This is not true. The actual reasons why old hardware works just fine are that CPUs have not improved all that much in single-threaded performance over the last decade or so and RAM does not meaningfully impact performance unless you have too little of it. The only big change has been the transition from HDDs to SSDs. Loading times and boot times have improved a lot because of it.

CPUs now have more cores than before but most software does not take advantage of it.

5

hagaiak t1_iv9hv6l wrote

Indeed. I also blame some language designers. The fact that so many computers, including smartphones, are running so much software written in dynamic languages instead of proper compiled ones accounts for an insane amount of lost performance in the world.

I feel it is just disrespectful. These languages could have been desea bit differently to solve the same use case, and still be in a similar performance category to other compiled languages.

2

cocopuffs239 t1_iv6mhvf wrote

Easiest way to explain is this. I put 3.2k into my computer in 2014, right now my phone that I bought in 2020 has almost the same amount of processing my desktop has.

But instead of needing desktop power, my phone battery is now enough to power my phones processing.

This is all due to shrinkage

16

wordyplayer t1_iv7gevo wrote

George: "You ladies know about shrinkage, right? Right??"

2

RikerT_USS_Lolipop t1_iv86k8r wrote

And where have all those gains gone? The user experience is identical. Everything the hardware guys give us, the software guys take away.

−2

cocopuffs239 t1_iv8l0y2 wrote

I wouldn't say that, it's a different form factor different o.s. it's not the same as a PC

1

muchcharles t1_iv6xcb5 wrote

Increasing linear density by 2X (not necessarily happening depending on how they are applying the marketing term to actual sizes) means quadrupling the number of transistors.

7

WheelyFreely t1_iv75mol wrote

A chip that was 3mm in size is now 1mm. Not only does it shrink in size allowing more.chips to be installed it also lessens the material required to build one and energy to operate them.

3

Chop1n t1_iv82gip wrote

Have you been thinking all this time that processor architecture is described in terms of millimeters?

1

toastjam t1_iv84zwu wrote

They're talking about chips, not transistors. The scale change would be roughly proportional.

3

WheelyFreely t1_iv8tky1 wrote

The comment i replied to asked that we explain like he was 5. So an oversimplification, but done for the sake of the analogy.

2

Down_The_Rabbithole t1_iv9ggzh wrote

Smaller chips are faster because things are closer together.

Smaller chips are cheaper to produce because you can make more of them at the same time

Smaller chips consume less power and thus increases battery life on smartphones/laptops

Smaller chips produce less heat and thus can be either clocked higher for more speed or laptops/smartphones can be made smaller/thinner as it uses less cooling.

But most often the chips don't actually shrink, they just use the new production technology to put more stuff in a chip of similar size.

1