Max Lemieux wrote:
A related article suggests that carbon nanotubes are the best
current candidate to replace silicon in computer chips. IBM is
doing research in this area.
http://www.ferret.com.au/articles/6f/0c00da6f.asp
I've seen an intriguing concept for a nanotube memory. And
for regular array's like that it isn't *too* hard to see how
that could be fab'ed. But when it comes to the significant
irregularity of a CPU I just don't see how you can do it with
nanotubes.
Anyone else heard of different replacement candidates? Allen?
-Max
I'm expecting things to slow down for quite a while. It is
going to be really tough to replace silicon. It has *so*
many advantages when it comes to fabrication. What will be
required is a breakthru. Predicting breakthroughs is foolhardy.
Look how far off the predictions were for fusion power.
--
Allen Brown
work: Agilent Technologies non-work: http://www.peak.org/~abrown/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Time flys like an arrow. Fruit flys like a banana.
Shoe flys don't bother me.
Allen C Brown wrote:
Bob Miller said the following on 06/29/2005 07:51 AM:
T. Joseph CARTER wrote:
Sure he can, he just has to under-clock his computer down to
2.1ghz as win98 has a cpu freq limit.
Bahahahahaha!
*ahem* Signed int, I take it?
Does that explain why Intel can't build a chip today faster then 4 GHz?
Intel is running into the physical limits of silicon. Moore's
Law is screeching to a halt.
To get significantly faster computers we will need a fundamentally
different approach. It is not a coincidence that the silicon
industry is financially depressed.
_______________________________________________
EUGLUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
