2 ms·
The cost is dependent on the wafer size - bigger is more expensive. Power is dependent on the capacitance of the various switching layers, so smaller features t
by LeifCarrotson 10y ago
The cost is dependent on the wafer size - bigger is more expensive. Power is dependent on the capacitance of the various switching layers, so smaller features take less power to clock on and off or can go faster. Inductance is dependent on trace length, so shorter traces can be clocked faster or at lower voltages. And that (plus speed-of-light issues) means that smaller chips can both go faster and cost less!
Five wafers stacked on top of each other would take 5 times as much capacity and materials to produce and cost about 5 times as much. The interconnect would be very difficult. Lastly, while you could cool the top wafer, the bottom layers would have to go through a lot of silicon to remove heat. Five times the number of layers on each wafer would also be prohibitively expensive, you don't just cut it thicker, you vapor deposit each layer under a mask and often also need to etch off parts of previous layers or ensure that higher layers are still planar. That gets difficult when you have a few steps of logic layering and some metal layers for interconnect, and would be much more expensive (and hot) with many layers.
This isn't so much of a problem with eg. NAND flash chips which are low power and the address and data pins can just be shared with a couple wafer select wires to separate them, but processors are neither low power nor trivially paralleled.
- petra 10y agoBut assuming you could stack up 5 wafers - and route between them, you get to position transistors in 3d and route them in 3d - which mens wires can be shorter, transistor driving those wires can be smaller and together you could reduce a lot of the wafer area required - maybe by doing 2 layers, you can reduce total wafer area by 50% (but also get much faster low power chip because of the short wires). But true, heat is a huge problem.