Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Density is mass per volume so how are you comparing it to a planar transistor? Your units don't even match.
IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology
91–100 of 217 posts
Re: IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology
#92The most surprising part for me is that IBM still somehow owns silicon labs, I was sure it's effectively a consulting company by now
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.
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.
Re: IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology
#93Re: IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know what it means. Something isn't automatically bullshit because it's outside your field of expertise.
“I’m able to parse a marketing term” isn’t a great claim here. Pointing out it’s an unclear term largely abused is valid.
Re: IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Density is mass per volume so how are you comparing it to a planar transistor? Your units don't even match.
mass per volume is one example.
Re: IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology
#96> 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…
It's been decades since published node sizes had any connection to actual feature size. Sadly this is just how it works in the semiconductor industry now.
Re: IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
>"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.
Re: IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, you can't get smaller than an atom, there is some amount of plausibility of using individual atoms as at least the occasional computing element. Beyond that, engineering a quark-gluon plasma as a processor? I'd watch that Star Trek episode. (we might fantasize about stuff like that but we're roughly monkeys smashing rocks together in a cave vs. building an iPhone sort of gap away from that kind of thing unles…
You could, in principle, use photons and/or electrons. We got pretty damn close in the vacuum tube era, and photonic computing has been a popular research topic for a while. You also have quantum computing, which I think can/does use subatomic particles? Not sure about that one
>We got pretty damn close in the vacuum tube era
Uh, what?
There's only so many fundamental interactions in the Universe. Computing requires you to be able to distinguish two states and our current methodology is built around some sort of black box three input machine that can output either state, a switch.
That switch is the part that cannot be scaled down infinitely. The reality we are familiar with doesn't exist at atomic scales. "Things" don't even have properly defined boundaries at a certain level, and thermal noise is a huge issue.
IMO a much more direct limiter of our current computing capability is lack of manufacturing ability, and heat. We were lucky that transistors were so amenable to lithography as a concept, that they work so well in 2D and as a surface feature, as that is what drove our advances the past 100 years and enabled computing to be such a normal thing. The combination of a "Solid state" effect, the electric force having very convenient properties, and lithography being so amenable to scaling things in various directions is how we got here.
But lithography doesn't scale into 3D. We've been hacking around that by doing more layers but that scales awfully, has very strict limitations, and makes the heat problem infinitely worse, to the point of making it impossible to work around.
If we could assemble things atom by atom exactly how we want, we could vastly improve our theory and practice, and build really intricate processor chunks with effective cooling channels or something, and computing would scale so much more. Maybe. Maybe some other problem would suddenly start dominating in that world.
Biology literally is nanotechnology, but it takes massive tradeoffs in exchange. It might never be possible to manufacture, at scale, stuff atom by atom. The Universe doesn't promise us infinite progress in technology. Quite the opposite.
Re: IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Density is mass per volume so how are you comparing it to a planar transistor? Your units don't even match.
Re: IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology
#100Keep hearing that IBM makes these incredible chips but don’t see anyone using IBM chips. What do they do with them?