5 ms·
Nope. Both RAM and disk are asymptotic. We're getting to the point now where the laws of physics are preventing us from getting much smaller. Now, all of thi
by redthrowaway 16y ago
Nope. Both RAM and disk are asymptotic. We're getting to the point now where the laws of physics are preventing us from getting much smaller. Now, all of this is only applicable to the current paradigm; an entirely new kind of RAM could mean vastly higher ceilings, but if we keep making it the way we've more or less been making it for decades, we'll hit a wall.
- ghshephard 16y agoInteresting. A citation would be informative. I tried the usual keyword searches of "memory disk space barriers asymptotic ceiling" but couldn't quickly fine anything. I'd be interested if you could provide us a pointer.
- redthrowaway 16y agoRight now DDR3 is made on a ~30nm process. We can't really shrink that too much more without the various pathways bleeding into each other. We're just running into insulation limits. They'll still be able to shrink it a bit, but this holds true for CPUs as well, and is one of many reasons why we're increasing cores in pursuit of higher performance. We're scheduled to hit 11nm; after that I'm not sure. See the Wikipedia article on quantum tunnelling for an explanation that's mostly above my comprehension. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling edit: To get an idea of the scales we're talking about, 11nm is only about 50 silicon atoms wide. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=11nm+/+width+of+silicon+atom http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=11nm+/+width+of+silicon...
- fhars 16y agoA back of the envelope calculation says that a linear shrink with a factor of three means nine times as many structures on a given die area. This is consistent with the factor of ten in a decade. There will be hard technical problems lurking in the details, but the end is not yet nigh.
- bdonlan 16y agoThat just means we need to move to a three-dimensional process. Speaking of which, aren't memristors supposed to be layerable?
- davidst 16y agoThat rule of thumb is from Jim Gray: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Gray_(computer_scientist) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Gray_(computer_scientist) It's held true for a long time. Like any rule of thumb, at some point it may no longer be correct, but we're not at that point yet.
- Devilboy 16y agoPeople have been saying that for decades. AMD, Intel et al. are still very confident that Moore's law is good till at least 2020.
- redthrowaway 16y agoWe're reaching the scale of process where quantum effects are starting to rule. I didn't say we wouldn't be able to keep expanding, simply that this current model will run out of steam. You can't continue to get smaller ad infinitum.
- kevinpet 16y agoTen years ago it was because the features were smaller than the light wavelength used to print the mask (not sure of terminology here). There's always something that looks like an insurmountable barrier, but billions of research dollars can work miracles. Intel spent $5B on R&D in 2009.
- mturmon 16y agoAnd don't forget, that R&D is funded by RAM profits. So, do your part, and upgrade soon. ;-)
- T-hawk 16y agoWell, if you keep saying that Moore's law will fail, you will eventually be right. Like if you say a certain celebrity will die this year, eventually you will be right. Like how economists have predicted 8 out of the last 5 recessions.
- Shorel 16y agoI think the refute of this rule of thumb will not come from the asymptotic nature of them in about 1000 years or whatever, but from the new memristors technology. So all memory will be the same.
- redthrowaway 16y agoNowhere near 1000 years. We're scheduled to be at 11nm in 5 years. That's 1/3 the width. So, in 1000 years, it'd be 1/600th the width, or 50/600 = 1/12th the width of an atom. We really don't have very long left with the current paradigm. Past about a decade or so, we'll need something new if we want to continue growth.