The cost of a sub-10 nm node size fab will be so oppressive that not even Intel will be able to make a financial case for it. Wall Street will pass a stone when they come to that realization. The IBM slaughter should have been the wake up call... http://www.extremetech.com/computing/192430-ibm-dumps-chip-unit-pays-globalfoundries-1-5-billion-to-take-the-business-off-its-hands
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Bill Bogstad <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Tom Metro <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Here's an opinion piece by Andrew "bunnie" Huang (hardware lead at > > Chumby, and I believe the guy I previously posted about who was building > > an open hardware laptop design). > > > > The Death of Moore's Law Will Spur Innovation > > > http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/design/the-death-of-moores-law-will-spur-innovation > >... > > > > This all sounds great for those rooting for open hardware, but all of > > this flows from the starting assumption that Moore's Law will run out of > > gas. The problem with that assumption, even though it is supported by > > the laws of physics, is that there will be many highly motivated > > organizations with deep pockets that will seek to redefine the problem. > > Actually, I don't think it is that startling at all. Whether it's > multi-core, VLIW, or adding more and more specialized instructions > (SSE, SSE2, SSE3) to optimize particular applications; it seems that > deep pockets have been attempting to redefine the problem for a long > time now. This does basically nothing for legacy apps and frequently > not that much for most newly written apps either. I'm aware of only > two broad areas which might overcome the fast approaching limits of > physics: > > 1. Switch from silicon to some other substance. I periodically read > articles about carbon nanotubes or other alternatives. There seems a > fair amount of money being poured into this and it's not yet clear > that these efforts won't bear fruit. But then again maybe not. > > 2. Move more towards 3D features in semiconductors. Again it seems > lots of money is being spent here. My impression is that it can be > made to work, but it is likely to significantly increase manufacturing > costs. If you REALLY need single package improvements in density > this will be doable but it seems like it will be hard to justify for > mass market products. > > Another issue which neither of you mention is the increasing cost of > the plants where these chips are produced. As I understand it, even > Intel finds it expensive to keep pushing for the next incremental > shrink in chip technology. If integrated design/manufacturing firms > become just too risky (what if a chip design is late? do you let your > multi-billion dollar factory sit idle?), then I would expect to see > even more contract chip manufacturing plants to appear. This may make > it possible for smaller chip design firms to get access to current > manufacturing technology. If that happens, the next step would be > for design "building blocks" to either be made available by the chip > foundries or as open designs. Smaller chip design firms will also > probably find it easier to use standardized interfaces/design > components as much as possible in order to reduce their cost/time to > market. This seems to me to be another influence that will push the > industry in the direction that Andrew Huang suggests. > > Bill Bogstad > _______________________________________________ > Hardwarehacking mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/hardwarehacking >
_______________________________________________ Hardwarehacking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/hardwarehacking
