On Thu, 2026-07-09 at 21:20 -0400, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote: > 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.
Caltech Magazine just announced they have developed a photonic chip with picosecond switching time. https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/steering-light-in-a-flash-new-chip-redirects-light-beams-in-less-than-a-trillionth-of-a-second 3D stacking with intercooling was a thing about forty years ago. I remember stories about stacking a bigger cache on a 486 or the first pentium by putting contact pads on the top and bottom. > > 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 :-) > > > >
