5 ms·
Don’t conflate “effective feature size” (the 5nm used in this article) with “real” feature size (or, more importantly, pitch), with transistor size. Transistors
by thechao 8y ago
Don’t conflate “effective feature size” (the 5nm used in this article) with “real” feature size (or, more importantly, pitch), with transistor size. Transistors are still huge compared to atoms—think hundreds of thousands, or millions. The issues at this scale are all electrical. (Bullshit terms like “quantum tunneling” are bandied about; the scientific use isn’t wrong, but any journalist using the term probably is.)
There’s alot of room down there, below the extended Moore’s law, just not always so CMOS-ey.
- FakeComments 8y agoSo does “effective feature size” mean anything? Besides that 5 < 7.
- Symmetry 8y agoMy understanding is that in the old days of planar transistors it had a clear meaning but with modern designs not so much.
- bogomipz 8y agoCould you elaborate, what does “effective feature size” mean in the context of process technology?
- thechao 8y agoIt's my personal way of politely saying "marketing bullshit". The real importance of 5nm vs. 7nm is the density of the transistors. A large portion of the recent gains in transistor density have been from reducing the pitch (the space between) transistors, rather than shrinking the size of the transistor.
- bogomipz 8y agoAh ok, that's quite funny. Does pitch reduction result in performance gains indirectly though - more transistors per chip?
- thechao 8y agoThat's an ultra-qualified "yes". Hardware isn't magic. Once you've got a Turing-complete device, software can cover the rest. However, HW implementations of functionality are 'better' than software in the sense of being either faster or more power-efficient. (Or some trade-off.) Our chips are better because we can throw more customized hardware to side-step (slow; power-hungry) software implementations. We have access to more customized HW because we have more transistors. If you're asking long-run questions in terms of HW/SW stack performance, I strongly suspect we've got another 3-10 doublings with "just more HW". If any of the post-patterning mechanisms pan out we could, theoretically, get another 15-20 doublings by going all the way down to atoms. After that ... I dunno; sort of the realm of scifi at that point.
- bogomipz 8y agoThanks that all makes good sense. I was curious about "post-pattering mechanisms"? Is this a new area in fab process technology? Might you have some links? Another 15-20 doublings from where we are today is pretty awesome.
- dfrage 8y agoPatterning is the use of multiple masks to get fine features smaller than the wavelength of light you're using where in previous larger feature nodes one mask sufficed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_patterning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_patterning It's very expensive in terms of tooling, since you need a lot more more masks, and production time spend in lithography steps. See this comment in this discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19570724 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19570724 for a bit more.