3 ms·

But we don't know precisely how many incremental improvements we have left to discover before we need to abandon silicon entirely. Well, it is not as if we wil

by ansible 10y ago

But we don't know precisely how many incremental improvements we have left to discover before we need to abandon silicon entirely. Well, it is not as if we will just suddenly stop using CMOS, but the end of improvements is in sight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_nanometer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_nanometer If we are willing to putter along with no process improvements whatsoever, then yes, we can keep using 5nm indefinitely. And no doubt there will be incremental improvements in performance and yield at that node. But we can't, and won't stop there to continue to drive down the cost of computing. It is just the end of the road for CMOS lithography.

akuma73 10y ago
What are your thoughts on the drivers for reducing the cost of computing beyond CMOS?
kcorbitt 10y ago
> But we can't, and won't stop there to continue to drive down the cost of computing. It is just the end of the road for CMOS lithography. I mean, is there any reason to believe this is actually true? There's no law that just because something is super useful its price will continue to drop forever. Just check out this chart: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/import/switchboard/blogs/mbaumhefner/Gas%20Elec%20Price%20History%20Comparison%20Final.jpg https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/import/switchboard/.... The blue line is the inflation-adjusted price of electricity by year. I think it's fair to say that electricity is even more vital to the modern economy than compute power, and that having more of it for cheaper would unquestionably raise the standard of living for everyone. There's also a functional and mostly-free market for its production. And yet its real cost has remained essentially stagnant over the last 40+ years. Now, there are obviously reasons why Moore's law has been a thing for so long (probably a lot to do with the exponentially increasing number of chips we use and the experience curve http://www.economist.com/node/14298944 http://www.economist.com/node/14298944), but the last 50 years in chips may have been more the exception than the rule.
- ansible 10y ago
  I mean, is there any reason to believe this is actually true? There's no law that just because something is super useful its price will continue to drop forever. The entire computer industry, well, the entire technology industry is founded on compute power becoming cheaper each year. What happens to these billion-dollar companies when that is no longer the case? Will Intel's investors be OK with it when they announce that they won't be coming out with anything much better than what they've currently got? Or will they be punished (severely) in the stock market after such an announcement? [1] The board of directors will respond to pressure from the investors (or get replaced), and will replace company leadership if needed to continue advancement in technology. And so they (or someone else) will invest in new technologies to move beyond CMOS lithography, such as molecular nanotechnology. Which will disrupt everything else related to technology and biology as well. [1] I read articles about gamers buying 5-year old Xeon processors for their game machines for $70 USD which are competitive with current-generation i7 desktop processors that cost much more. If Intel can't sell new processors that are effectively better than older ones, that's going to be a real problem for them, and the stock market will eventually notice.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    > The entire computer industry, well, the entire technology industry is founded on compute power becoming cheaper each year. No, we've just gotten used to it. So now, like any junkie with a bad habit we're going to have to get used to doing without that. Or deal with the increased electricity bill. > The board of directors will respond to pressure from the investors (or get replaced), and will replace company leadership if needed to continue advancement in technology. Company leadership being replaced is not going to magically change the laws of nature. At some point even Intel investors will have to accept that there are such things as physical laws and nature doesn't care one bit about your quarterly earnings reports.
    - ansible 10y ago
      Company leadership being replaced is not going to magically change the laws of nature. Well, that's just it, we haven't hit the physical limits of computing yet. But we are indeed close to the limits of what is practical with CMOS photo-lithography. At some point even Intel investors will have to accept that there are such things as physical laws and nature doesn't care one bit about your quarterly earnings reports. This acceptance process will be quite painful, and someone, some way, some how will step in to promise greater returns.

by ansible 10y ago

akuma73 10y ago

What are your thoughts on the drivers for reducing the cost of computing beyond CMOS?

kcorbitt 10y ago

> But we can't, and won't stop there to continue to drive down the cost of computing. It is just the end of the road for CMOS lithography. I mean, is there any reason to believe this is actually true? There's no law that just because something is super useful its price will continue to drop forever. Just check out this chart: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/import/switchboard/blogs/mbaumhefner/Gas%20Elec%20Price%20History%20Comparison%20Final.jpg https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/import/switchboard/.... The blue line is the inflation-adjusted price of electricity by year. I think it's fair to say that electricity is even more vital to the modern economy than compute power, and that having more of it for cheaper would unquestionably raise the standard of living for everyone. There's also a functional and mostly-free market for its production. And yet its real cost has remained essentially stagnant over the last 40+ years. Now, there are obviously reasons why Moore's law has been a thing for so long (probably a lot to do with the exponentially increasing number of chips we use and the experience curve http://www.economist.com/node/14298944 http://www.economist.com/node/14298944), but the last 50 years in chips may have been more the exception than the rule.

ansible 10y ago
I mean, is there any reason to believe this is actually true? There's no law that just because something is super useful its price will continue to drop forever. The entire computer industry, well, the entire technology industry is founded on compute power becoming cheaper each year. What happens to these billion-dollar companies when that is no longer the case? Will Intel's investors be OK with it when they announce that they won't be coming out with anything much better than what they've currently got? Or will they be punished (severely) in the stock market after such an announcement? [1] The board of directors will respond to pressure from the investors (or get replaced), and will replace company leadership if needed to continue advancement in technology. And so they (or someone else) will invest in new technologies to move beyond CMOS lithography, such as molecular nanotechnology. Which will disrupt everything else related to technology and biology as well. [1] I read articles about gamers buying 5-year old Xeon processors for their game machines for $70 USD which are competitive with current-generation i7 desktop processors that cost much more. If Intel can't sell new processors that are effectively better than older ones, that's going to be a real problem for them, and the stock market will eventually notice.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > The entire computer industry, well, the entire technology industry is founded on compute power becoming cheaper each year. No, we've just gotten used to it. So now, like any junkie with a bad habit we're going to have to get used to doing without that. Or deal with the increased electricity bill. > The board of directors will respond to pressure from the investors (or get replaced), and will replace company leadership if needed to continue advancement in technology. Company leadership being replaced is not going to magically change the laws of nature. At some point even Intel investors will have to accept that there are such things as physical laws and nature doesn't care one bit about your quarterly earnings reports.
  - ansible 10y ago
    Company leadership being replaced is not going to magically change the laws of nature. Well, that's just it, we haven't hit the physical limits of computing yet. But we are indeed close to the limits of what is practical with CMOS photo-lithography. At some point even Intel investors will have to accept that there are such things as physical laws and nature doesn't care one bit about your quarterly earnings reports. This acceptance process will be quite painful, and someone, some way, some how will step in to promise greater returns.