AMD Makes 10-Nanometer Transistor 180
Yorrike writes: "Reuters is reporting that AMD are about to reveal their smallest double-gate transistor to date. From the article: 'The gate of the transistor, across which electrical current flows to turn the switch on, measures 10 nanometers, or 10 billionths of a meter.' The article goes on to suggest that this may lead to a 1 billion transistor chip."
Re:i wonder (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:i wonder (Score:2)
You are right though. The smaller they make them the more they'll pack in. Without some kind of active cooling system in the chip the thing will glow like a hotplate.
"The star that burns twice as bright burns half as long." - Bladerunner (the movie, not the 1974 book about a renegade surgeon that performs operations and smuggles medical supplies in a world where medical care is free only if you submit to castration after the Earth was plagued by a lethal spinal meningitis flu. It involves the concept of a national healthcare system overwhelmed by a viral outbreak and the problem of skyrocketing costs to the nation and a eugenics shortcut to cut corners). GOOGLE up [ "Alan Nourse" "Bladerunner" ] or [ "Alan Nourse" "Blade Runner" ] to understand.
I'm confused (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I'm confused (Score:2, Informative)
(.25*10^-3)/(10*10^-9)=25,000 transistors would fit into the diameter of a human hair.
Re:I'm confused (Score:2)
They run all over, so be VERY CAREFUL not to spill them!
Re:I'm confused - humor attempt = shit (Score:2)
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
Re:I'm confused (Score:1)
No, it's around 0.05mm. That would be 5000 transistors then...
Maybe you should try a pubic hair instead, they're slightly thicker.. :)
Re:I'm confused - gay karma whore. (Score:3, Insightful)
2) (To quote from Billy Madison)
what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Spam (Score:1)
Re: SPAM FILTER. (Score:1)
Re:I'm confused (Score:1)
Re:I'm confused (Score:2)
Re:I'm confused (Score:1)
Dr. Evil's CPU... (Score:5, Funny)
#2: "Uh, Dr. Evil, we've already designed a chip with 1 million transistors, quite a few years ago in fact."
Dr. Evil: "How many is a lot then?"
#2: "1 billion would be very impressive. We're working on that right now."
Dr. Evil: "Alright then... 1 BILLION transistors."
Re:Dr. Evil's CPU... (Score:2)
Re:Dr. Evil's CPU... (Score:1)
Re:30 atoms wide (Score:1)
Re:30 atoms wide (Score:1)
3D (Score:2)
I don't understand... (Score:2)
You mean there's another type of transistor?
Re:I don't understand... (Score:1)
Bipolor is fast, but very difficult to manufacture on the small scales required for microprocessors.
FET is slower, but is relativly easy to manufature on small scales. This is manufatured by over laping two thin "strips" of silicon over eachother like a cross. The width of the silicon "strip" is the path size. For the new chip this would be (correct me if I'm wrong) 10nm.
Most chips use FET transistors because of the difficulties of manufaturing bipolor transistors.
(I did have cool ascii-art diagrams of the two types of transistors, but aparently trying to explaing things well is considered lame on slashdot, and the lameness filter tried to stop me. ARGHHHH!!!!)
Re:I don't understand... (Score:2)
In other words, it makes perfect sense to describe things this way, establishing a hierarchy of objects with more and more refinements upon the other. To to this is an indication that the person is systematic in thought. After all, it is trivial to describe an object using attributes that it shares with all other objects in its class.
Imagine lurid story that begins this way: The man, having two legs and two arms, sat in the bushes hidden from his enemies. Is this a SF story about a men who do not have two legs and two arms?
Same. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Same. (Score:2)
Re:Same. (Score:2, Informative)
AMD employee: You are aware we make the same product, right? Any technological advances either one of us makes, rest assured the other isn't far behind. Surely you don't think you are the only cpu manufacturer interested in reducing transistor size, right?
Intel employee: I'll shut up now.
You say they make the same product ... (Score:1)
Re:You say they make the same product ... (Score:2)
Now if Intel were actually shipping 4.1GHZ CPUs, I might be impressed. Remember that they can probably only maintain this frequency with hand-picked CPUs and components, watercooling (posibly peltier as well), large fans, etc. It's just not reasonable so far.
Re:You say they make the same product ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Plus, you've got to remember that these "fast" Pentium IV's are months away from even being introduced on paper. By that time the comparably-performing Hammers should be out, running both 32 and 64-bit applications and from what I hear quite fast as well. Basically, the difference is this: Intel caters to the average Joe who thinks bigger numbers are better, while AMD takes much more care to ensure that their chips run at a fast, reliable speed that rivals that of higher-rated Pentium IV's.
no more mhz benchmark? (Score:3, Funny)
I can already picture this:
"Buy Intel's new Pentra Plus 2004, the only processor with a billion transistors!!!" (yay, men in blue dance yadda yadda)
Re:no more mhz benchmark? (Score:1)
And don't even get me started on mounting heatsinks on these tiny buggers...
Re:Intel and the Itanium 2 (Score:1)
Find the 2N2222 in this picture and win a prize!
Re:Intel and the Itanium 2 (Score:1)
Yay (Score:2)
GMFTatsujin
Now let's see them fab it (Score:4, Insightful)
It's been done. (Score:1)
Re:It's been done. (Score:1)
Billionth? (Score:1)
A billionth would be 10^-12
Silly americans.....
Re:Billionth? (Score:1)
Re:Billionth? (Score:1)
We do in NZ however follow the British definition for a billion, which IS one million million....
Welcome to slashdot
Re:Billionth? (Score:1)
I'm actually a brit myself, I never knew we used a different definition of billion here (and there too it seems), in fact when I was at school doing physics and economics A-levels we were taught to use the 10^9 version.
Oh well, I expect it came over with McDonalds or something. Thanks for educating me on my own country's mathematical scales, heh.
Re:Billionth? (Score:2)
I'm not sure which New Zealand YOU live in, but the New Zealand standard for 1 billion is 1*10^9 not 1*10^12
This is one of the rare occasions where I agree with the American definition, since it's useful. Who the hell would want to say 1 thousound million when they can just say 1 billion?
Re:Billionth? (Score:1)
Re:Billionth? (Score:1)
My guess is Auckland.
Re:Billionth? (Score:1)
And I'm not lazy. As I said, it's one of the few American definitions I agree with. I still spell colour with a "u", night with a "ight" and I know the difference between "then" and "than".
Re:Billionth? (Score:1)
And the difference between "insure" and "ensure" - I hate that one.
How do Americans spell "light"? I bet they have some silly way of spelling "hiccough" too.
Re:Billionth? Blame the French (Score:1)
This is similar to the changed spelling and pronounciation of aluminum (=> aluminium) in an attempt to systematize its naming. This only occured after the industrial revolution made the once rare metal commonplace and hence the original naming has been preserved in America.
Room to spare! (Score:5, Funny)
Press Release Slants (Score:5, Informative)
The earlier press release talked, in a half assed way, about the performance benefits. This one talks, in a half assed way, about the reduced size.
Of course, this happens because whoever digests these things for us unwashed masses doesn't understand what the hell they're talking about.
And the gate length has much more to do with the performance, not the transistor density, as the transistor density is dominated by the via sizes and interconnect sizes.
Re:Press Release Slants (Score:1)
If sold in "Everything Scottish".... (Score:4, Funny)
Great marketing sloga (?) (Score:2)
Heat Sink? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Heat Sink? (Score:2)
So many more transistors all on one chip... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:So many more transistors all on one chip... (Score:1)
WTF is a triple-gate transistor??? (Score:1)
I do research on double-gate transistors. I have no clue what they mean by a triple-gate transistor. I think that this is another lame intel PR attempt. It's probably like when they made up a new name for FDSOI and called it depleted-substrate or some BS like that and got laughed at. They must want to be one gate better.
Re:WTF is a triple-gate transistor??? (Score:2)
Blah.... (Score:1)
Yea. this means smaller and faster chips for amd..but when...10 years from now?
Re:Blah.... (Score:2)
+ they need to lay the foundation for the hype of the future.
poor AMD... (Score:1)
How does this sound; the AMD 10 GHZ noipcon. Sure, it has the IPC of an 8088, but 10 GHZ -- lets see Intel beat *that*!
Shhhhhh! Don't tell the RIAA! (Score:3, Funny)
Once the RIAA gets news of this I'm sure they'll find some hack think-tank that will make the proclamation that according to their data, there is a direct correlation over time between "Transistors Per CPU" and "Music Piracy". Lawyer parties will follow.
(When I started typing this, I was making a joke. But now that I've read it back a few times, this looks more probable than improbable.)
That's Nothing.... (Score:1)
I've got a 9 nm transmitter right here in my pocket I just whipped up the other day.
Re:That's Nothing.... (Score:1)
Quit playing with it or you'll go blind.
Re:That's Nothing.... (Score:1)
CMOS Technology ??? (Score:4, Interesting)
Where on earth am I going to find a motherboard for a CMOS processor?
First CMOS, then Silicon, then Gallium (what ever happened GaAs anyway?), then Coppermine, and now back to CMOS with a silicon fin.....
Mmmrrrppphh, full circle you have come young Jedi.
-Yoda
Re:CMOS Technology ??? (Score:1)
You must not have watched Sesame Street as a child.
Which of these things doesn't belong?
Re:CMOS Technology ??? (Score:1)
ooooooooh (Score:1)
Now I'm wondering if I should concern myself with getting a hold of a clawhammer or wait until they re-engineer them on a 0.01 micron process :) And since AMD acquired Alchemy Corp. imagine what kind of power you could pack in a PDA... say a really low power duron at 1GHz with some DDR chips (not modules of course) soldered on the PDA's board and maybe a mobile GeForce chipset...
Ah but that's probably 10 years down the road anyways... Sometimes it's painful to know about future technologies, but not be able to get em yet :)
FinFET Technology (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems the real question of relevance rests in the new technology they're using to build these devices. The FinFETs have a nice writeup here [compoundse...ductor.net]. They can be built just with the defects from plateaus in normal photo-lithographic processes, thus using the nicely developed techniques usually limited to 125 nm structures to build 10 nm structures. This still means the overall transistor size will be on the order of a a few hundred nm, to deal with contacts, etc, but it is a sight better than standard 0.13 micron transistors, and much easier to use in mass production than e-beam lithography. (Just think about those old vector displays -- that's ebeam lithography for you). Seems like a fine idea for nanoscale structure building, and not one of these technologies may have impacts far beyond just standard IC circuit technology; with 10 nm devices, all sorts of quantum coherent processes become accessible, if you work for them.
From the guys that call their chips thunderbirds, (Score:1)
Unit Conversion (Score:2)
moving away from binary? (Score:1)
The ultimate system, in my opinion, would use a multistate transistor with ON, OFF, and a dimmer function for everything in between.
Re:moving away from binary? (Score:1)
The Real Question (Score:1)
Does it require a radiator to stay cool?
hee hee (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's nice... (Score:1)
AMD has to use the naming convention they do, because Intel is making this a race marketing that more GHz means a faster processor. Intel has been engineering their procs for higher clock rate, so that they can market them better against AMD procs that are just as fast with a lower clock rate.
Re:That's nice... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's nice... (Score:1)
Re:That's nice... (Score:1)
it's only after the sale that any form of intelligence can be found.
During the sale, and while you're still at the store, it's all about
the big numbers.
Re:That's nice... (Score:2)
Yeah, but who's lying to them?
AMD rates their processors with a number that looks like a clock speed, but isn't labelled as one.
Intel gives their processors a high clock speed and implies that that makes them inherently superior, when it clearly doesn't.
Technically, neither is lying, but they're both being slightly dishonest. And what are people gonna do to avoid being "lied" to, buy a Mac?
Re:That's nice... (Score:1)
Yeah, consumers don't like to be lied to and while Intel's deception that GHz is all that matters and AMD's relative speed naming may turn consumers off... how many of them really *need* the extra speed? Sure I can figure out what to do with 2GHz of speed with xyz IPC (or CPI in my comp. architecture course this past spring) to take the utmost advantage of the speed, but what Joe Schmoe off the streets can do that too?
You've got those that just e-mail and chat online along with listen to CDs or watch DVDs... we're not exactly talking techie types that want bleeding edge stuff.
Re:That's nice... (Score:1)
Note: I tell this to non-math non-technical people. The don't want to hear about the details. So *don't* do the math, just imagine it...
"Think of a freeway. If you are standing next to a freeway, the number of cars going past is the amount of work being done. Obviously the more cars going past, the better. Intel builds a two lane freeway, with cars going 200 miles per hour. AMD builds a 5 lane freeway with cars going 100 miles per hour.
Either way, you have about the same number of cars going past. "
Them "Ahhh... so where is the Mega-Hertz thing?"
Answer: "That's the speed of the cars."
Them: "So the Mega-Hertz isn't really how fast the computer goes? "
Answer: "It's just one aspect."
If this conversation went further - I would throw something in like : comparing AMD vs Intel clock speeds is not accurate, because your dealing with different designs (number of lanes, speed of the cars.... )
Re:That's nice... (Score:2)
Re:Please, no Britishisms on 9/11 (Score:2)
So what it boils down to is do you define the company as an entity or the sum of it's people.
Sorry, I'm having my pendanticivitis diagnosed tomorrow!
Re:Please, no Britishisms on 9/11 (Score:2)
You can move the whole universe if you view yourself as the center..
You can't move the whole universe if you don't view yourself as the center..
Both are correct statements depending on your viewpoint.
A giant calls me an ant.
An ant calls me a giant.
Both statements are true yet they are in opposition.
Learn Perspective!
Re:Please, no Britishisms on 9/11 (Score:2)
I think that's also known as sticking ones head in the sand.
Re:Please, no Britishisms on 9/11 (Score:2, Insightful)
So in American English at least, the original Anonymous Coward is correct... though frankly I thought that it was just a mistake, not a Britishism.
Re:Please, no Britishisms on 9/11 (Score:2, Insightful)
PS. it's singular, and the headline is correct. But I hates the nit-pickers.
Re:HEAT (Score:1)
Anyway, the answer to your question is that the same number of transistors made smaller and bunched together would be warmer because heat dissipation decreases with decreased surface area, even though the energy produced by these is the same. If you put more and smaller transistors into the same area, you will get more energy and more heat.