4 ms·
A nice approach I'm hoping will gain traction when discussing density across different types of logic is the "LMC" metric, as put forward by some TSMC and Stanf
by acidbaseextract 6y ago
A nice approach I'm hoping will gain traction when discussing density across different types of logic is the "LMC" metric, as put forward by some TSMC and Stanford folks: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9063714 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9063714
Improved semiconductor device density directly translates into benefits for
more advanced computing systems—
the primary driver for progress in
semiconductor technology. Thus,
we propose the use of the following
three-part number as a metric
to gauge advancement of future
semiconductor technologies: [DL,
DM , DC ], where DL is the density
of logic transistors (in #/mm2), DM
is the bit density of main memory
(currently the off-chip DRAM density,
in #/mm2), and DC is the density
of connections between the main
memory and logic (in #/mm2).
As an example, today’s leading edge
technologies that are published in
the literature [15]–[17] can be
characterized by [38M, 383M, 12K].
As another example, 3-D stacking of
multiple logic and memory dies can
increase DL, DM, and DC .
- jjoonathan 6y agoI love the idea of having that information readily available, but I don't think it will ever be a banner spec. Three numbers is two too many and who wants "density" when you can have "MEGATRANSISTORS"? I know, I know, but marketing is what it is and I think it's better to lean into it.
- acidbaseextract 6y agoOf course, and I agree that marketing traction matters. I should have said this is an idle hope that some of these fancier metrics get published/leaked about TSMC/Samsung/Intel processes rather than that they become the metric. I do think MT/mm^2 or whatever is a strong candidate to become the thing. "megatransistors" is an exciting word.
- phkahler 6y ago>> "megatransistors" is an exciting word. Not as cool as megaFonzies.
- wombatpm 6y agoSo is that going to be M as 1000^2 or M as 1024^2. (still bitter about the whole GB vs GiB think caused by marketing people)
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- MrPatan 6y agoTo be fair to marketing people, they were correct, weren't they? Deciding that in your field you're going to redefine standard units and their abreviations is a bit lazy.