3 ms·
>"Do we really want our devices to stop working physically, at the chip level, in less than a decade? Some people still play on game consoles decades old; these
by nickff 5y ago
>"Do we really want our devices to stop working physically, at the chip level, in less than a decade? Some people still play on game consoles decades old; these are most certainly consumer devices."
Many components in your consumer devices age; my greatest concern is electrolytic capacitors (specifically the tantalum ones). I think many game consoles and computers with switched-mode power supplies are unlikely to last decades. If you want a simple way to get your devices to last longer, I suggest that you pick ones with external (brick) power supplies, as the SMPS is likely to be one major cause of failures.
>"I’d much rather we over-design stuff to last decades, at least at the chip level where overedesigning is super cheap."
I am not sure that people are willing to pay significantly more for these longer-lasting devices, and all that extra effort will be wasted if the devices are scrapped prematurely. It may be more (environmentally) efficient to simply replace the devices upon failure rather than over-designing them.
- ece 5y agoI've now had two phones that with mild and bad water damage, have had their cellular connections stop working, while WiFi and BT work just fine. Anecdotally, I'd like to say this might have something to do with the RFFE's analog components and that water proofing seems like a very worthwhile thing to aim for in handheld electronics. I suppose what I'm saying here isn't new, the environmental factors that a device is most likely to encounter is something people do account for. I bought a 50degC ambient PS because I didn't want to worry about heat, and a waterproof phone, and a better cooler for OC. I imagine such buying will continue to outweigh any concerns for 5nm chips not lasting long enough for some time still. Which is not to say that semi companies don't have challenges in front of them.