Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology

newsroom.ibm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 217 posts

Re: IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology

#101

Post by measurablefunc »

gruez wrote: post #91
measurablefunc wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Density is mass per volume so how are you comparing it to a planar transistor? Your units don't even match.

Not all densities is mass per volume. eg. population density.

It's a physical quantity per some unit of spatial measurement so the units still don't match up b/c in one case the transistors are stacked per volume & in the other case per area.

> Historically, "node" sizes (like 28nm or 7nm) directly correlated to the physical length of a transistor's gate. Today, names like 3nm or 2nm reflect a marketing generation. The actual transistors are significantly larger than these nanometer labels, meaning density varies between companies

> Research organizations like IEEE have proposed new metrics, such as transistors per cubic millimeter (MTr/mm^3), to accurately map future 3D scaling. However, commercial chip foundries resist this change because it would make it harder to calculate commercial yields and thermal density limits using standard industry formulas.

https://share.google/aimode/Z5BqUjlZWFNphm6Z6

Re: IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology

#102

Post by macintux »

smokefoot wrote: post #92
Barrin92 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IBM has been the company with the most patent registrations in the US for I think 29 of the last 30 years. They're one of the largest industrial research organizations in the world. They're doing more hard science research than almost anyone else.

Which is so weird, right? Like what is IBM now and how does a research lab make sense with the rest of their business? The money-making parts of IBM are: legacy software and hardware (declining), consulting (low margin, low leverage), enterprise software (mostly redhat, not really growing). It's hard to explain how IBM research is accretive to any of that.

I don't know enough about their business to say, but I'm thrilled at even the idea that someone might actually value long-term success over quarterly earnings.

Re: IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology

#103

Post by amirhirsch »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #25
evanjrowley wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

boost sales for their systems division, POWER CPUs, mainframes, maybe Quantum stuff

I always feel like I'm not quite getting quantum stuff no matter how much I read and learn: what does this advancement have to do with quantum computers?

Don't worry about not grokking quantum computing stuff, neither do any of the people who invest in it as well as many people who work on it.

1. The OP has nothing to do with quantum computers.

2. Quantum computing deals in coherent quantum states: associated with N qubits there are 2^N complex amplitudes. You can measure by sampling the square-magnitude of the complex amplitude which turns it into a Probability Distribution. Quantum computing "gates" cause interference in the complex amplitude of entangled qubits cancelling out incorrect results, such that if you maintain coherence for long enough and sample the final state and measure the probability distribution, you get a computationally useful result. The key challenge in quantum computing is extending the coherence time of a larger and larger number of qubits, which is why you hear so much about quantum error correction. Recent results from Google showed a scaling law for "surface codes" using multiple qubits to create an error-corrected topological qubit with extended lifetime. There is no telling how far this scaling law will go, but as long as Gil Kalai is in the next room, it is unlikely there will be actual useful quantum computation for a while.

Re: IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology

#104

Post by rbanffy »

smokefoot wrote: post #92
Barrin92 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IBM has been the company with the most patent registrations in the US for I think 29 of the last 30 years. They're one of the largest industrial research organizations in the world. They're doing more hard science research than almost anyone else.

Which is so weird, right? Like what is IBM now and how does a research lab make sense with the rest of their business? The money-making parts of IBM are: legacy software and hardware (declining), consulting (low margin, low leverage), enterprise software (mostly redhat, not really growing). It's hard to explain how IBM research is accretive to any of that.

Licensing is a substantial source of revenue, and their servers have very impressive (think Telum’s caching) innovations, even though they rely on third-parties for manufacturing the chips themselves.

They are also betting on quantum computing to become commercially relevant.

Re: IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology

#105

Post by amirhirsch »

amirhirsch wrote: post #103
TallGuyShort wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always feel like I'm not quite getting quantum stuff no matter how much I read and learn: what does this advancement have to do with quantum computers?

Don't worry about not grokking quantum computing stuff, neither do any of the people who invest in it as well as many people who work on it. 1. The OP has nothing to do with quantum computers. 2. Quantum computing deals in coherent quantum states: associated with N qubits there are 2^N complex amplitudes. You can measure by sampling the square-magnitude of the complex amplitude which turns it into a Probability Distr…

[dead]

Re: IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology

#106

Post by wasabi991011 »

monirmamoun wrote: post #64

Two big problems 1) NOBODY knows what IBM's definition of "sub 1nm" means 2) IBM bullshits so much more than anyone including Intel (remember the "teleportation" ads years ago) that nobody is going to waste time researching what they mean in reality

> remember the "teleportation" ads years ago

Never heard of this, care to elaborate?

Re: IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology

#107

Post by [deleted] »

u1hcw9nx wrote: post #85
buran77 wrote: post #10

> logic technology can extend for the first time below the 1 nm node, advancing the era of angstrom-level scaling, where dimensions approach the size of individual atoms. While transistor nodes now refer to a generation of manufacturing technology versus an exact physical dimension, IBM’s 0.7 nm technology—also referred to as 7 angstroms—demonstrates how continued scaling remains possible. Continuing the well establi…

Unlike marketing terms, "nm density" is actually useful measure. It describes density measure where you can compare it to planar transistors from the 28-nanometer (28 nm) node around 2010 to 2011 and before. A "0.7 nm" node has equivalent transistor density as if we could have shrunk standard flat transistor node down to 0.7 nanometers.

[deleted]

Re: IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology

#108

Post by rbanffy »

anvuong wrote: post #97
BitwiseFool wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"The electron wave function will simply just appear wherever it wants (within the electron probability cloud)." I don't know which is more ridiculous, the fact that reality works like this, or, that a species of apes was able to figure this out.

The experiment to observe this behavior is pretty simple though (Young's double slit), and it was conducted more than 200 years ago. The explanation came much later but it's not like the phenomenon was hiding somewhere.

It’s both ridiculous and quite amazing really. The hint that there is something less random underneath it that we just haven’t figured out (and lack the resources to explore at this time) is tantalising.

Even if there isn’t, the way it seems all based on the uneven flow of state over spacetime is deeply fascinating for someone who studies computing.

Re: IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology

#109

Post by marcosdumay »

vitally3643 wrote: post #52
throw0101d wrote: post #45

One of the images has "15 rows of Si atoms". Is there a limit to how small things can go? A single atom? Is there a physical/molecular limit to Moore's Law?

Yes, and we're already there. We've been there for quite a while, in fact. Once you make the gate of a transistor small/thin enough, quantum effects take over. Electrons will randomly teleport into and through the gate causing the transistor to conduct when it shouldn't. I don't have numbers to hand, but it's on the order of a few atoms wide. There's really nothing that can be done about it either, as far as we know.…

> you can't simply exclude them from any given volume of space...

... inside a silicon crystal.

You can keep the electrons into as small a volume as you want, but you need something there forcing them, and doped silicon will only force them so much.

In fact, those transistors are smaller than what a silicon crystal can do, and the electrons are only held there because they are made of more materials than only silicon.

Post reply on HN