Submitted by Saltedline t3_yi7inh in technology
Comments
Absolute_Authority t1_iuhg56j wrote
Transistor sizes as '1nm' or '5nm' is just branding similar to Iphone 12 or Iphone 13. They aren't actually physically that small. It did used to actually be the size it was named but precisely because of the slowing pace of innovation you mentioned its become a marketing gimmick.
DavidBrooker t1_iuj8w47 wrote
There are structures at the scale in the name, but which structure they're referring to is ambiguous between different manufacturers (and sometimes generations). Intel's 14nm has similar transistor pitch to TSMC's 7nm process, for instance, and both have transistor pitches on the order of 40nm.
burner9752 t1_iuiz73j wrote
This used to be only true for intel, tsmc was using the correct size to naming scheme in the past.
TheLianeonProject t1_iuhkdbg wrote
I know, but nonetheless, we are approaching a physical limit to the size of transistors.
razorxent t1_iuhnl0l wrote
Always have been
IgnobleQuetzalcoatl t1_iuhspjs wrote
I don't think you knew that given the first sentence in your original comment. I didn't either. After some quick googling, looks like the 5nm process has transistors spaced around 51nm at minimum.
bik3ryd34r t1_iui62os wrote
Isn't 5nm the width of the transistor?
685327593 t1_iui9xko wrote
No, not even close.
Gwthrowaway80 t1_iuiqm4m wrote
Once upon a time those terms were related
Tiny-Peenor t1_iui57mm wrote
It’s okay if you didn’t know. Hell, I didn’t know
685327593 t1_iuhgibd wrote
The process node names no longer actually refer to any real life feature size.. not even close. Moores Law is dead, but the marketing people don't want to admit it yet.
punxcs t1_iuhmo31 wrote
Moores law being dead is equally marketing BS from people who want you to pay more.
Gordon Moore himself predicted the law to no longer be applicable beyond 2025, the law itself cannot be dead because it’s a fundamental observation of technological progress, not a pet hamster.
Who knows what technological breakthroughs will occur in the next two years.
cpt_melon t1_iuhr6fv wrote
Moore's law is not about technological progress generally. It's a specific observation that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit double every two years. Since we are reaching the physical limit of increasing transistor density, Moore's law is dead.
​
>Who knows what technological breakthroughs will occur in the next two years.
That is literally not the point.
685327593 t1_iuhsyaz wrote
The original law also said costs would halve every 2 years and that's been dead for a while now.
685327593 t1_iuhn5zg wrote
You're just arguing semantics. The point is density is scaling much slower than it used to. Call it what you will, but what matters is we aren't going to see the big leaps in performance and cuts in cost anymore.
punxcs t1_iuhvmpf wrote
True I am i guess, it’s just it’s very tiring having people arguing over what tech companies say, nvidia wants the idea of cheaper components to make items gone because they can charge more at every level and people will pay it.
The cost cutting it seems like has never been passed onto consumers.
Much as how RNA vaccine research had its Breakthrough out of necessity, I am sure that issues like quantum tunnelling, or computing, and whatever the future of computing is, will be worked out by people who have been working on it for decades.
685327593 t1_iui2pdb wrote
There's a lot to unpack in that comment, but for the sake of brevity I'll simply say there is no logical reason to expect a new technology to come around and bail us out right as the old technology is reaching its limits.
PS: The COVID vaccines we are using now were developed before a single American had even died of COVID. The technology was already there, the issue was simply all the regulations in the way. Operation Warp Speed didn't develop a new technology, it just cut all the red tape to cut the licensing time down from 10 years to 1 and obviously funded the construction of new production facilities to allow the process to be scaled up rapidly.
babwawawa t1_iuhp8cw wrote
Compute density measured at a global level continues to increase at an exponential rate, and is a much more relevant predictor of technological progress than individual chip density.
TheCriticalAmerican t1_iuhfvux wrote
>How will the economy respond to a slowing pace of innovation? Or will investments into quantum computing supplant silicon?
This is my big question too - TSMC is barreling towards a future that has a literally dead end at it and I don't know what their plan is. I think the next big thing will be a shift to something like photonics chips - something China is already doing.
TheLianeonProject t1_iuhkria wrote
Glad I am not the only one wondering this. Do you have any good resources on photonics? Would like to write about it.
Given that chip production and new innovations, in general, are becoming more and more capital intensive, it probably make sense to make massive investments into emerging technology now, to head off tech stagnation in the coming decades.
685327593 t1_iuia91x wrote
In most industries tiny improvements are the norm. It's very unusual for an industry to be able to improve as quickly as the semiconductor industry has and it should be obvious it can't keep going forever.
jchamberlin78 t1_iuhxrx9 wrote
I think that there will be new innovations in multi-core processors... With processors becoming task specific to improve throughput. (Like Tesla's self driving core).
aquarain t1_iui19s9 wrote
They have been working on the photonic chips essentially forever. There is hope that the breakthrough will come when transistors no longer advance, because they must. In addition to scaling clocks to terahertz the photonics don't produce anywhere near as much heat so you can stack them like the layers in flash memory. The cores will likely be very basic risc cores from the first.
Quantum computing is rather specialized. Non Von Neumann architecture. Unlikely to enter mainstream computing any time soon but irreplaceable for the applications that need it.
heckdditor t1_iuhw63w wrote
That's crazy they are saying the same shit since 90nm.
Come on, technology find it's ways...
685327593 t1_iuif6mo wrote
That's not how it works. Technology can't just magically ignore the laws of physics. In most industries progress is painfully slow or non-existent.
SuperMazziveH3r0 t1_iujijda wrote
We thought laws of gravity would be impossible to defeat, yet there were plenty of innovators that incorporated properties of physics to achieve manned flight. While we won't break laws of physics in our lifetime (I think), there will be ways to mitigate the limitations of physics
685327593 t1_iujj4jh wrote
The point is we're not going much farther with MOSFET transistors. We need a completely new technology.
SuperMazziveH3r0 t1_iujjaqn wrote
Yes.
And there will always be new technology.
685327593 t1_iujjr61 wrote
One day, but there's no reason to assume it will be soon. Could be 100 years from now.
SuperMazziveH3r0 t1_iujjww1 wrote
Or could be 10, you never really know until you know
heckdditor t1_iuiguqw wrote
Technology will find it's way. :)
685327593 t1_iuj9hj3 wrote
Why should this be different than any other industry?
TheCriticalAmerican t1_iuhfmgt wrote
>Mass production of the eagerly anticipated 2nm chips is likely by 2025 at HSP’s Baoshan facility in Hsinchu. The 2nm chips are touted as allowing for 10% to 15% faster computing speed and using 25% to 30% less power compared to the company's 3nm silicon.
Basically, this won't even happen for at least 5-10 Years. Since 2nm won't be mass produced until 2025 - assuming everything goes perfectly - which I'm skeptical about given the limits of technology at these scales.
I don't know.... does TSMS have a plan when node shrinks are literally impossible? I get they're are the forefront of this manufacturing process, but what happens when things shift to new fabrication processes because of literally physical limits?
JamClam225 t1_iuiq064 wrote
Tsmc has a good reputation and history of delivering on time.
When nodes get too small you then focus on material science.
Willinton06 t1_iuid5rj wrote
They’ll do it too, I don’t see what problem you’re trying to convey here, they’ll just adapt to whatever pops out, and so will all other chip manufacturers
the_chip_master t1_iui07oh wrote
1nm is a marketing number boys. Each “node” is about a .7-.8 shrink and 20-30% performance at ISO power.
Moore’s law is really an economic law and as long as there is ROI someone will invest the 20B in RD and another 20B+ to manufacture it. TSMC has huge lost of customers that line up to use the next node.
They will find a way to shrink and sell the next generation! You think Apple, AMD, Nvidia, Qualcomm want their business to end? No they all work with TSMC to define and find value in the next node.
The value with HPC, AI, autonomous cars, 5G has made advanced silicon the most important thing, the oil and steel of this decade. Why do you think the US is running so scared of the East these days as they are totally behind and will never catch up
humanitarianWarlord t1_iuht2fh wrote
China won't like this
oddentity t1_iuj864d wrote
It's so tiny they'll never find it
dontpet t1_iuj2vsk wrote
I know very little about Taiwan and China but I imagine being valuable to the west and China is a very effective way to keep China at Bay. Especially if the technology behind it can be extracted at short notice.
humanitarianWarlord t1_iujvbon wrote
Look up "the silicon shield", as far as I'm aware the silicon wafer production facilities in Taiwan are crucial for businesses elsewhere. A war could potentially damage those facilities and set china back.
China would be shooting themselves in the foot if they invade Taiwan, that's why Taiwan innovating faster than everyone else is so crucial.
littleMAS t1_iuijxza wrote
I remember when they debated going below 1𝛍m. It was more of a process and yield issue back in the 1970s. Talk about 10nm at that time would have clearly been in the category of impossible.
685327593 t1_iuj9lu3 wrote
10nm is still impossible. Nobody is actually producing transistors that small.
AyoTaika t1_iuit3w5 wrote
So moore's law was a lie, wow.
KarmaStrikesThrice t1_iujosqu wrote
I have been tought that physics allow 1.5nm to be the smallest possible size of a silicone transistor, because it uses the smallest possible amount of atoms to create a working transistor. The technology process size of chip companies is often something different than size of the transistor, TSMC usually says what is the resolution at which they can make changes to the atomic structure, so they can go well below 1, we might even see 0.9nm or 0.8nm technologies in a decade.
But thw truth is that silicone technology is coming to its limit. Up until now smaller manufacturing processes were responsible for the most improvement by far, lowering the nanometers to a half meant 2x the amount of transistors, 2x the performance and half the power consumption and manufacturing price. It is the main reason AMD was able to overtake Intel back when intel was stuck at 14nm and AMD was at 11nm and then 9-10nm. Intel had better more advanced chips, but the manufacturing process was just too good for AMD and worse 10nm chip was 5-10% better than 14nm Intel, not to mention AMD started making 16 core processors whereas Intel had 10 max, which was just enough in most games (except for Total War strategies where big maps with 16 AI players could use 16 cores at 100%).
c0rzaaa t1_iuhg9vc wrote
By then china would be running things
elegance78 t1_iuhi9x4 wrote
How is the housing crash going comrade? Did you see the GDP numbers for Hong-Kong today?
TheLianeonProject t1_iuhe7ob wrote
That is crazy, at 1nm, the size of transistors is approaching atomic scales.
Make one wonder, what is next? There is a physical limit to the size of transistors. How will the economy respond to a slowing pace of innovation? Or will investments into quantum computing supplant silicon?