I quite agree as marketing gets in the way of making sense of the truly
teeny-tiny. Because of quantum mechanics maybe Moore’s Law is defunct if
only applied to a few layers. True 3D production may be the answer but with
today’s technology this may not be possible. Yet the answer could be
stacking chips in a true 3D fashion while employing the very latest in
cooling technology.

Happy computing.


Murray 🙂


On Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 11:08 AM Paul Koning via cctalk <
[email protected]> wrote:

> The current scaling  numbers are in many ways marketing numbers rather
> than a reflection of the geometric realities of earlier decades.  Early on
> a single geometry increment would apply more or less to most of the chip.
> That's no longer true.  So to the extent that 2 nm geometry appears at all,
> it's only in one or a few layers, with most layers having significantly
> larger geometry.
>
> Nevertheless, those numbers are still mindboggling.  Especially when you
> consider the machine (the EUV stepper) that has to project those patterns
> at that resolution onto the wafer, at high speed.  The fact that it's
> possible at all is just amazing; the fact that only one company in the
> world is capable of doing it isn't much of a surprise.
>
> I saw a video about that technology which said that it's analogous to
> shooting at a dime on the moon, from earth, and asking "which side of the
> dime do you want me to hit?"  I think that's a slight exaggeration, but
> hitting WIlilam Tell's apple on the moon, from earth, seems accurate
> enough.  Yowza.
>
> The big problem at those tiny geometries is that devices are small enough
> that quantum mechanics is a major source of trouble.  For example,
> insulators that small aren't really insulators.
>
>         paul
>
> > On Jul 8, 2026, at 8:41 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk <
> [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > We can stand in awe as classic computerists at the advancement of
> > technology: I  recently read that chip technology size is at 2 nanometers
> > for ultra-large scale processors. In 1971 it was 10,000 nanometers or 10
> > microns. This is a 5000x reduction in size in 55 years. One has to ask:
> Is
> > Moore’s Law still alive?
> >
> > Happy computing?
> >
> > Murray :-)
>
>

Reply via email to