4 ms·
Is Moore's Party Over?
- Egregore 15y agoI think we can just add the energy consumption to the Moor law and it will continue to be true for some time.
- z92 15y ago...and then it can continue with number of cores per CPU unit. It all implies chasing a number that indicate current product as better than last year's. That number [what ever it might mean for each generation] will continue to follow Moor's law.
- jonnathanson 15y agoIf we look at Moore's Law as it was originally stated, i.e., w/r/t transistor density on chips, then yes, it is up against a serious obstacle in the near future. That obstacle is quantum physics. Below a certain nanometer count, you're working at truly atomic scale, and Heisenberg effects start to kick in. Quantum computing may solve this issue, but realistically, probably not at a pace quick enough to keep Moore's Law operating on track the way it has been historically. More likely, we'll hit a plateau for awhile and eventually shatter it. When that happens, computers will be very different machines from what they are now. The shift from transistor-based computers to quantum computers will be akin to the shift from vacuum tubes to transistors. In the meantime, we're probably just going to load up and more and more parallel processors.
- VMG 15y agoMoore's Law doesn't explicitly say anything about density: The most popular formulation is of the doubling of the number of transistors on integrated circuits every two years. (WP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moores_law#Other_formulations_and_similar_laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moores_law#Other_formulations_a...) So the density needs to increase only of the size if the size integrated circuit cannot increase.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- Tuna-Fish 15y agoA more realistic direction is up. Or, 3d integration. When the manufacturing gets mature, this gives a large immediate boost, because in two chips of size n/2 that are bonded together, the maximum distance between any two circuit elements is smaller than in a single chip of size n. After that, it will allow scaling by increasing layers.
- natekupp 15y agoAgreed, but we should note that the fundamental problem is not transistor density or quantum physics, but heat dissipation. Going 3D makes smaller process nodes less important, but efficiently removing heat from a die stack is a real challenge. Sandwich a 130W TDP processor die between two other similar die and the heat dissipated per cm^2 is tremendous.
- geogra4 15y agoIANAEE but is there some way to integrate peltier junctions into a 3D microchip design so that the heat all gets funneled out of the CPU in a regulated and controlled manner?
- natekupp 15y agoNot my area of expertise, but I believe most research today is on microfluidics, introducing microchannels into 3D interconnect layers alongside the TSVs to cool the device. For example, http://deepaksekar.weebly.com/uploads/1/9/8/6/1986457/3d_microchannel_cooling.pdf http://deepaksekar.weebly.com/uploads/1/9/8/6/1986457/3d_mic...
- marcf 15y agoIt is a constant theme to say that Moore's party is over. But there are massive $$ incentives to maintain it and it is likely to continue in some form or another -- either in terms of power consumption, multiple cores, specialized instructions, etc. I figure that chips will become much more 3D, almost like cubes, instead of flat rectangles, with just enough freespace to allow for cooling of one sort or another. Graphene and other substrates that allow for faster chips at cooler temperatures is also a good bet for future chip improvements.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- feralchimp 15y agoMoore's law for CPUs may be slowing down, but [someone else's] law for "compute value per unit cost" is probably accelerating faster today than ever before. Not just because "software is getting better" (although it is), but because the cost to support oddball user sets has dropped to the point where users can demand just about any kind of value they can think of, and someone will take a shot at providing it.