5 ms·

Great news! It sounds like a good opportunity to start using a better metric. Perhaps millions of transistors per square milliliter? Or billions, at this pace.

0-_-0 5y ago
I prefer "transistors per square micrometer", it's the same as "million transistors per square millimeter" but shorter to write.
- __alexs 5y ago
  Except the density can vary hugely for a single process depending on the type of circuit you're building so even measuring that is quite tricky.
  - 0-_-0 5y ago
    An improved metric is for example the LMC metric, which uses 3 numbers: density of logic (Dₗ), the density of main memory (Dₘ), and the density of the interconnects linking them (Dᶜ). But density is still a fundamental metric: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27219935 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27219935
mhh__ 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count#Transistor_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count#Transistor_de... Enjoy. I have had to link this way too many times while discussing transistor density on this site, apparently it's ingrained that the nanometre figures are mostly bullshit, but not where to actually find a real density figure. Of particular note is just how far (Density isn't everything but to 1* it'll do) behind Intel 14nm is.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
magicalhippo 5y ago
At least for us casuals, a "performance metric" ala number of some standard ARM core (with some fixed caches sizes) or similar per unit area could at least be more relatable? Though not sure if this would be useful for those who actually work in the industry, maybe we'll just end up with "TSMC 8600" etc there too.
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  For us casuals, there should be straight performance metrics + power consumption figures; transistor scale or amounts don't tell that story.
  - magicalhippo 5y ago
    If you had a standardized core, you should be able to get those figures as well I presume. Again not sure how much sense they make, but yeah.
tomxor 5y ago
Yup, but even density is not enough, it's not possible to get enough power into the most densely packed area, and sometimes the highest performance parts need to be lower density - in other words it's also dependent on microarchitecture. We are so very far away from being able to describe chip performance using basic underlying physical metrics.
- pulse7 5y ago
  True, but it is way better than 5nm, 3nm, 1nm and you can not even cross-compare now...
  - Hikikomori 5y ago
    Unless it's strictly defined and is followed by everyone it's going to be just as useless or useful as xnm is today. I mean, different parts of the chip have different density, cache, logic, etc. Should it be some specific part or average for the full chip? What if one architecture has massive caches which are denser than logic areas? What about AMD Zen with chips of different nodes? Or should it just be what the manufacturer states as the maximum possible, even if no chip gets close to that stated number, even in dense areas of the chip?
    - pulse7 5y ago
      OK. Then it should be the "average number of transistors per square micrometer" for a die.
    - tomxor 5y ago
      would a reasonable simplification be average propagation speed per transistor? Originally (in true denard scaling land) 2D feature size implied speed and density (which in turn implied power efficiency)... but now that features are distorting into different shapes, those two things are not necessarily directly correlated any more, so perhaps they should be measured separately. Propagation is the tricky bit because that's where ultimately designs and usable density come into play, but these are only supposed to be rough guides - a few metrics at extremes could be enough, propagation at highest (unrealistic) density, and a density that is possible to continually drive without heat dissipation and power issues.
miohtama 5y ago
Maybe to start counting individual atoms and molecyles in this point.
tromp 5y ago
I suggested transistor area in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27061358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27061358
JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
This is my hope. If the next announcement says they’ve achieved 500 picometer I flip my desk.

0-_-0 5y ago

I prefer "transistors per square micrometer", it's the same as "million transistors per square millimeter" but shorter to write.

__alexs 5y ago
Except the density can vary hugely for a single process depending on the type of circuit you're building so even measuring that is quite tricky.
- 0-_-0 5y ago
  An improved metric is for example the LMC metric, which uses 3 numbers: density of logic (Dₗ), the density of main memory (Dₘ), and the density of the interconnects linking them (Dᶜ). But density is still a fundamental metric: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27219935 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27219935

mhh__ 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count#Transistor_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count#Transistor_de... Enjoy. I have had to link this way too many times while discussing transistor density on this site, apparently it's ingrained that the nanometre figures are mostly bullshit, but not where to actually find a real density figure. Of particular note is just how far (Density isn't everything but to 1* it'll do) behind Intel 14nm is.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

magicalhippo 5y ago

At least for us casuals, a "performance metric" ala number of some standard ARM core (with some fixed caches sizes) or similar per unit area could at least be more relatable? Though not sure if this would be useful for those who actually work in the industry, maybe we'll just end up with "TSMC 8600" etc there too.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago
For us casuals, there should be straight performance metrics + power consumption figures; transistor scale or amounts don't tell that story.
- magicalhippo 5y ago
  If you had a standardized core, you should be able to get those figures as well I presume. Again not sure how much sense they make, but yeah.

tomxor 5y ago

Yup, but even density is not enough, it's not possible to get enough power into the most densely packed area, and sometimes the highest performance parts need to be lower density - in other words it's also dependent on microarchitecture. We are so very far away from being able to describe chip performance using basic underlying physical metrics.

pulse7 5y ago
True, but it is way better than 5nm, 3nm, 1nm and you can not even cross-compare now...
- Hikikomori 5y ago
  Unless it's strictly defined and is followed by everyone it's going to be just as useless or useful as xnm is today. I mean, different parts of the chip have different density, cache, logic, etc. Should it be some specific part or average for the full chip? What if one architecture has massive caches which are denser than logic areas? What about AMD Zen with chips of different nodes? Or should it just be what the manufacturer states as the maximum possible, even if no chip gets close to that stated number, even in dense areas of the chip?
  - pulse7 5y ago
    OK. Then it should be the "average number of transistors per square micrometer" for a die.
  - tomxor 5y ago
    would a reasonable simplification be average propagation speed per transistor? Originally (in true denard scaling land) 2D feature size implied speed and density (which in turn implied power efficiency)... but now that features are distorting into different shapes, those two things are not necessarily directly correlated any more, so perhaps they should be measured separately. Propagation is the tricky bit because that's where ultimately designs and usable density come into play, but these are only supposed to be rough guides - a few metrics at extremes could be enough, propagation at highest (unrealistic) density, and a density that is possible to continually drive without heat dissipation and power issues.

miohtama 5y ago

Maybe to start counting individual atoms and molecyles in this point.

tromp 5y ago

I suggested transistor area in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27061358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27061358

JohnJamesRambo 5y ago

This is my hope. If the next announcement says they’ve achieved 500 picometer I flip my desk.