5 ms·
>(meaning at least 10x larger than CMOS transistors) at petahertz (10^15) speeds, you could sacrifice a lot of space for larger components, and still come out
by knome 1y ago
>(meaning at least 10x larger than CMOS transistors)
at petahertz (10^15) speeds, you could sacrifice a lot of space for larger components, and still come out on top vs gigahertz speeds (10^9) by doing more work but a hell of a lot faster, no?
if you can build a chip that's a million times faster, you can sacrifice 3/4 of that speed to doing more work with fewer components and still be 250,000x faster.
- formerly_proven 1y agoNo, because propagation delay is the same.
- Jabrov 1y agoYep! That's a key thing to keep in mind here. As chips get bigger (especially at higher frequencies), propagation delay becomes an important blocker
- adgjlsfhk1 1y agoit would be really interesting to see how this played out. the entire way you build circuits changes. e.g. current adder designs use extra transistors to save carry propagation latency, but for optical, that might make the latency worse...
- colechristensen 1y agoPropagation delay is not the same, electrical signals travel much slower in semiconductors than light in a vacuum. If you could make an entirely optical chip, size would matter a whole lot less because light will travel much faster through whatever that material will be.
- nyeah 1y agoPropagation delay for light in a semiconductor tends to be roughly equal to propagation delay for electrical signals in a semiconductor. It's not exactly equal because the dielectric constant is a function of frequency. This is assuming you use a waveguide and travelling waves to send the electrical signals. If you charge up the whole line then, sure, that's slower.
- tbrownaw 1y agoMake wave pipelining cool again?