Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 56
  1. #1
    Joined
    Feb 2002
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    5,192

    Insights into wafers, CPU's and the future.

    I stumbled on this article while looking for something else, as is usually the case. I found the article interesting, and thought I would share it..

    http://www.cpuplanet.com/features/article.php/1499981

    In the second half of 2003, Intel's "Prescott" Pentium 4 redesign will take the next step -- from 0.13-micron to 0.09-micron process technology, although it's not called that. Below a tenth of a micron (the size, Intel points out, of a typical virus), it's fair to say you've entered the realm of nanotechnology.

  2. #2
    Joined
    Feb 2002
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    5,192
    Back to the top..

  3. #3
    Joined
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    2,225
    I'll confess that I didn't read the article, but we are getting close to the wall of transistor based technology. If the scale is too small (I forget what parts of the transistor are referred to when saying 90nm .13 micron etc.) then there will be interference among the electrons. They will just "bleed" through parts of the transistor and render it useless.

    Never fear though, alternatives to transistors (and I'm not talking about vaccuum tubes ) have been researched for decades. 3 dimensional wafers for one thing, I actually held one in my hand once, pretty cool stuff.

    Anyway it'll be a decade at least before anything supplants the current technology.
    -soplcod

  4. #4
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Vancouver eh?
    Posts
    1,203
    This should be a sticky in Processor Forum.... Moving this one to Processor and leaving a note to Claw.

  5. #5
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    UK
    Age
    36
    Posts
    527
    Interesting article, much like the intoduction to electronic devices I recieved as part of a module I took last semester at uni...

    BY the way, Prescot won't be a P4, it'll be called a P5... keeps to intels 2 core revisions per pentium naming cycle...

    Chaos
    Gigabyte GA-7VT880-L - Athlon XP2500+ - 1024mb twinX XMS3700 - Radeon 9700 128mb

    Iiyama VM Pro 512 - Coolermaster ATC200 MX1 - Soltek SL-75FRN2-L -(with)- Athlon XP1700+ - 1024mb PC2700 - Radeon 9600 Pro 128mb - Creative SB Audigy -Logitech MX 500 USB

    Toshiba Tecra S1 - P-M 1.6GHz - 768mb PC2100 - Radeon mobility 9000 32mb (my wireless dedicated LAN server...)

  6. #6
    Joined
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    2,225
    Originally posted by ChaosEngine
    Interesting article, much like the intoduction to electronic devices I recieved as part of a module I took last semester at uni...

    BY the way, Prescot won't be a P4, it'll be called a P5... keeps to intels 2 core revisions per pentium naming cycle...

    Chaos
    A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet...
    -soplcod

  7. #7
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    224
    A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet...
    or in intel's case--dog sh!t is still dog sh!t no matter what you call it...
    My sig will be here some day...

  8. #8
    Joined
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Crouched behind a camera with a wide lens
    Posts
    4,117

  9. #9
    Joined
    Feb 2002
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    5,192
    Jeez, I feel honored (blushing), actually got something into the stickies... It was an interesting article though. It gave a lot of insights into the future of CPU technology. I for one, learned a lot by it..
    Last edited by danny5; 04-20-2003 at 09:29 PM.

  10. #10
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    1,682

  11. #11
    Joined
    May 2001
    Posts
    11,532
    Originally posted by sopclod
    Never fear though, alternatives to transistors (and I'm not talking about vaccuum tubes ) have been researched for decades. 3 dimensional wafers for one thing, I actually held one in my hand once, pretty cool stuff.

    Well, were you referring to Carbon Nanotubes, also?

    Theorists have shown that nanotubes can be conducting or insulating depending on their structure. This may lead to applications in nanoelectronics.
    http://www.personal.rdg.ac.uk/~scsharip/tubes.htm

    heh, just noticed this was mentioned in the link by danny5.
    Last edited by notdrugged; 04-20-2003 at 08:15 PM.
    ...Does anybody else feel like Congress simply bailed themselves out? Isn't that what they really mean by a bailout?

  12. #12
    Joined
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    2,225
    Yeah, maybe I should actually READ the article...
    -soplcod

  13. #13
    Joined
    May 2001
    Posts
    157
    If you get too small you have to deal with the consequences of quantum mechanics... a la quantum computing.

  14. #14
    Joined
    Jul 2001
    Location
    VA, USA
    Age
    37
    Posts
    256
    Quantum computing has nothing to do with the size of the computer. Its all about entangling particles and seeing what happens when you measure them. The equipment to do that is probably pretty big.

  15. #15
    Joined
    May 2001
    Posts
    157
    True, I didn't mean to infer that the size of the computer had to do with anything but as the semiconductor technology is shrinking to the point where some quantum physics plays a big part, then you can't compute using the current semiconductor technology. That's why I mentioned quantum computing. I was referring the the size of the logic "gates" not the actual equipment size.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •