IBM says it has made working versions of 7nm chips • Hacker News Board

Re: IBM says it has made working versions of 7nm chips

#51

Post by c0nnector » Thu, Jul 09, 2015, 11:08 AM UTC

icanhackit wrote: post #46

Time to start working on the 7km chip. Fibre everywhere, content delivery servers everywhere, game servers out the wazoo so my crappy media streaming gadget or VR headset can remotely pull in the latest movies and games in 4K with minimal lag. You could outfit a few of the world's major cities for the cost of a new fab. Unfortunately this won't sell new consumer hardware on an regular basis.

You can build an entire new industry around it.

Eveything as a service. Even hardware could become a service. You wouldn't have to actually own it, instead pay a monthly fee and you have access to produxt X. You get the latest models without any extras fees.

The advantage of having a service is that the customer is hooked and it's harder to leave.

Re: IBM says it has made working versions of 7nm chips

#52

Post by puranjay » Thu, Jul 09, 2015, 11:35 AM UTC

c0nnector wrote: post #51

icanhackit wrote: post #46

Time to start working on the 7km chip. Fibre everywhere, content delivery servers everywhere, game servers out the wazoo so my crappy media streaming gadget or VR headset can remotely pull in the latest movies and games in 4K with minimal lag. You could outfit a few of the world's major cities for the cost of a new fab. Unfortunately this won't sell new consumer hardware on an regular basis.

You can build an entire new industry around it. Eveything as a service. Even hardware could become a service. You wouldn't have to actually own it, instead pay a monthly fee and you have access to produxt X. You get the latest models without any extras fees. The advantage of having a service is that the customer is hooked and it's harder to leave.

These folks are trying something like that: https://saybyebuy.com/

As an idea, I feel it's wonderful. It would massively reduce wastage.

Re: IBM says it has made working versions of 7nm chips

#53

Post by tinco » Thu, Jul 09, 2015, 11:45 AM UTC

monk_e_boy wrote: post #39

StavrosK wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all the clean rooms required, I doubt it, but I don't know.

We have an ultra-clean room. It has a window.

My university has clean rooms, they have windows, the hallways have windows too so you can peek in from outside. Always great to show to visitors :) (at night they have weirdly colored lighting, pink, purple, so it looks really funky, no idea why)

Re: IBM says it has made working versions of 7nm chips

#54

Post by rurban » Thu, Jul 09, 2015, 11:48 AM UTC

vex wrote: post #40

rurban wrote: post #28

YES! Kill Intel, PPC64 everywhere :) It will not happen, I know, but "Wouldn't it be nice" was always one of my favorite Beach Boys song (Pet Sounds!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofByti7A4uM This is THE chance.

Why exactly do you care so much?

As POWERfan said.

The intel instruction set is an abomination. You couldn't even thing of something worse, however they managed.

Intel needs competition. Everybody else died away.

PPC64 is on the open, everybody can make one. This is better than the IBM PC revolution, where you could license it to produce competing parts. Also better than the various ARM chips.

We need to break the HW barrier from the last years. CPU speed has stalled, only with new tech, as in the new Z series or Power8 chips Moore's law can be revived.

And there are many more arguments to be excited.

Re: IBM says it has made working versions of 7nm chips

#55

Post by kitd » Thu, Jul 09, 2015, 11:50 AM UTC

JoachimS wrote: post #6

jtchang wrote: post #4

No mention of Intel anywhere in the article and how far along they are. Also 7nm blows my mind. I mean current CPUs already blow my mind with how tiny the transistors are getting. And specially stabilized buildings? "NOBODY MOVE! WE'RE ETCHING!"

Actually Intel was mentioned and its struggle with the 14 mm node.

I think even me and my soldering iron could manage @ 14mm :)

Re: IBM says it has made working versions of 7nm chips

#56

Post by JoachimS » Thu, Jul 09, 2015, 12:00 PM UTC

akie wrote: post #24

JoachimS wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually Intel was mentioned and its struggle with the 14 mm node.

I think you're off by a factor 1000000 ;-)

Yes, May I blame autocorrect?

Re: IBM says it has made working versions of 7nm chips

#57

Post by megablast » Thu, Jul 09, 2015, 12:05 PM UTC

POWERfan wrote: post #50

vex wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why exactly do you care so much?

I can't speak for the GP, but POWER is a true RISC ISA, and many prefer it just for that reason.

There is no such thing as CISC or RISC anymore, what with micro ops.

Re: IBM says it has made working versions of 7nm chips

#58

Post by nkassis » Thu, Jul 09, 2015, 12:09 PM UTC

dzhiurgis wrote: post #48

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's silicon-germanium (so still has silicon in it). I'm curious what comes after :)

Graphene looks promising (as it is for everything).

Hehe, yeah I was just reading a magazine this morning talking about it's the next big material in cycling for everything from strengthening carbon fiber parts to conduct electricity to replace cables used for shifting/brakes to hearth rate monitoring clothing etc...

Seems like the wonder material.

Re: IBM says it has made working versions of 7nm chips

#59

Post by valarauca1 » Thu, Jul 09, 2015, 12:33 PM UTC

jtchang wrote: post #4

No mention of Intel anywhere in the article and how far along they are. Also 7nm blows my mind. I mean current CPUs already blow my mind with how tiny the transistors are getting. And specially stabilized buildings? "NOBODY MOVE! WE'RE ETCHING!"

The M68k was produced on a 3500nm process, which at 7nm you can fit 2 whole M68k dyes within an original M68k's transistor.

Re: IBM says it has made working versions of 7nm chips

#60

Post by valarauca1 » Thu, Jul 09, 2015, 12:41 PM UTC

dzhiurgis wrote: post #48

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's silicon-germanium (so still has silicon in it). I'm curious what comes after :)

Graphene looks promising (as it is for everything).

Carbon sucks in chips.

C has a 5.5eV band gap while Si has a 1.1 and Ge has a 0.67

Whats bandgap? The energy difference between a conductor/insulator in a semi-conductor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bandgap_in_semiconductor....

The only real reason to switch to carbon chips is noise reduction at the 4nm node (if we ever go that far, we're getting into Long X-Rays at that point for lithography).

Also 4nm node will only be ~16-18 carbon atoms wide.