4 ms·
The real question is - can we really know that there is nothing better than CMOS? Imagine an old star that is undergoing a collapse - the matter infalls under
by Artlav 10y ago
The real question is - can we really know that there is nothing better than CMOS?
Imagine an old star that is undergoing a collapse - the matter infalls under it's own gravity, accelerating faster and faster. At some point, the matter runs out of density - the neutrons slam into each other and the whole mass of the star going inwards at a good fraction of c tries to undergo an abrupt stop.
The leisurely free fall turns into the violence of inertia. Then, either that violence is enough, and the collapse continues towards a black hole, or it's not enough, and all we get is a boring neutron star.
Will the economical inertia behind the Moore’s Law push it past each technology's clang of limits all the way towards some sort of singularity, or will it one day come to an abrupt halt against an immovable wall of the structure of the universe?
The latter, obviously.
Would that wall be CMOS? We can't really know until we hit it.
- jacquesm 10y agoThere are quite a few options besides CMOS all with desirable properties and some of those with potential feature sizes smaller than Silicon. The problem is that none of these are economical at scale and that is where the problem lies, it's an economical issue, not so much a technical issue. Bismuth, Gallium-Arsenide and other variations on that theme, various superconductors used for processing elements all have the potential or have already surpassed Silicon for various parameters. But none have done so in a way that would allow massive adoption. So for now the 'economical inertia' as you put it so eloquently seems to be exactly where the problem is, inertia is only useful to get you past a hump when you're still moving forward, when you're already stuck it is a hindrance.
- adrianN 10y agoAny new technology will have a really hard time competing economically with an industrial process that has been refined for five decades. The question is whether there are people willing to pay a hefty premium for the new technology to finance its development.
- jacquesm 10y agoIt's a bit like the combustion engine. A completely different tech (such as optical) may be a better bet.
- the8472 10y ago> Gallium-Arsenide I have read somewhere that this actually integrates fairly well into CMOS.
- smellf 10y agoIt took me too long to find this: information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_CMOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_CMOS From the article - possible replacements for CMOS include: Rapid single flux quantum devices Carbon nanotube field-effect transistor Silicon nanowire FET Spintronics, various types Tunnel junction devices, e.g. Tunnel field-effect transistor Indium antimonide transistors Photonics, optical computing Graphene nanoribbons Molecular electronics
- ralfd 10y agoAt the end of the article it states: > “There is nothing on the horizon today to replace CMOS,” he says. “Nothing is maturing, nothing is ready today. We will continue with CMOS. We have no choice. Not just Intel, but everybody. If you want this industry to grow, then we need to be doing things with CMOS