3 ms·
None of this was inevitable: chipmakers deliberately chose to stay on the Moore's law track. At every stage, software developers came up with applications that
by hga 11y ago
None of this was inevitable: chipmakers deliberately chose to stay on the Moore's law track. At every stage, software developers came up with applications that strained the capabilities of existing chips; consumers asked more of their devices; and manufacturers rushed to meet that demand with next-generation chips.
Moore's law is stated in terms of a doubling of lowest cost transistors you can fit on a wafer, and results in massive yield gains if you shrink an existing design when moving from node to node (the "tick" in Intel's tick-tock cycle). So whatever customers want, you'll still move to the next node if the economics allow you to deliver the same at a lower cost. This is one of the things that drives game console economics, mid-life refreshes which allow delivering the same capabilities with cheaper and fewer chips (fewer decreases other manufacturing costs).
The heat problem and related end of "free" speed increases is due to the failure of Dennard scaling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennard_scaling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennard_scaling) after a good 30 year run.
Every time the scale is halved, manufacturers need a whole new generation of ever more precise photolithography machines. Building a new fab line today requires an investment typically measured in many billions of dollars — something only a handful of companies can afford.
Ignoring the far out scaling limits, this is what I would have focused on. As far as I can tell, the biggest issue right now is the skyrocketing costs of lithography due to the multiple masks required for multiple patterning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_patterning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_patterning).
If, and it's a big if (see Intel continuing to push out they date they plan to adopt it), when EUV lithography become practical that should change this very recent economic issue, substituting manufacturing costs in buying and running $$$ EUV machines for many fewer masks required for each design, lowering non-recurring engineering (NRE) expenses.
That could return a lot of the game to what it was like for a long time, albeit with only a very few foundries being able to afford these machines. The first generation the leading company in the Netherlands is trying is pretty insane in how they generate the light, by exciting tin vapor (!), imagine the inherent contamination potential for both the focusing optics and the wafer....
One other detail: to the extent a lot of companies start focusing on the economic ~22nm or so node that's just before costs skyrocket, we may be seeing some serious economies of scale as people focus on aspects other than the design shrink. Sure, you'd like smaller nodes, especially for lowest power applications, note how Intel is leading with mobile SKUs for it's newest smaller node chips, but that node is perfectly fine for a whole lot of things. Another economic factor to focus on, not everyone is an Intel, nVidia, Apple etc. that needs cutting edge nodes.
- dclowd9901 11y agoIt is very annoying that you replace words with links. On a mobile device, the link is shortened so you can't see what it's referring to as its been cropped. Just for future reference.
- hga 11y agoThanks for the tip! And fixed. (I have old and myopic eyes so I don't do mobile devices and didn't know of such obvious in retrospect tricks. Another thing to push me to getting a cheap smartphone to replace my ancient Nokia candybar feature phone.)
- Symmetry 11y agoWhen Gorden Moore wrote his first paper on things doubling every fixed time period it was on the lowest cost transistors back in 1965 but the term Moore's Law didn't come into use until the mid 70s by which time he had written a number of other papers pointing out a number of other doublings including feature size. In the old days these all doubled in lockstep so the original coinage of the term didn't really distinguish economics from minimal feature size. So there's really no legitimate way to insist that Moore's law has to refer to the lowest cost number of transistors. It actually wasn't that by coinage and it certainly isn't that by common usage. I've even got a copy of a memo by Moore in my 6.175 lecture notes endorsing a broader conception of Moore's law.
- hga 11y agoWell, my conclusion after many years, echoed by one of the themes of Nature article including the lock step nature of node moves, is that Moore's Law is more one of economics than anything else. So I focus on that original definition of it, it seems to be the essence of it and its implications. Now, if you're in the weeds of designing a chip or node, yeah, things like feature size are paramount, but why are you going to the trouble of moving to a new node in the first place, especially with the end of Dennard scaling a decade+ ago? Power consumption could be an alternative to the raw economics, or maybe taking up less space in the smaller mobile form factors. Intel's leading with mobile chips for some reason.