Intel's 3D Transistors One Step Closer to Reality 69
An anonymous reader writes "Reducing power consumption is the name of the game in today's semiconductors and Intel today described its tri-gate transistor technology as one of the key technologies that could free the company from the trap of thinner gate insulators and increasing current leakage. Tri-gate (three gates instead of only one) could reduce the power consumption of transistors by 35% right now and drops off-voltage - one of the main sources of current leakage - by 50%. These results are the good news. The bad news is that tri-gate won't be available until 2009."
Looks Like FinFET To Me (Score:2, Informative)
Intel cooler than AMD! (Score:2, Funny)
-DaMouse
Re:Intel cooler than AMD! (Score:1)
Re:Intel cooler than AMD! (Score:2)
Re:Intel cooler than AMD! (Score:4, Insightful)
They could tell you, but then they'd have to kill you. Seriously, AMD doesn't like to trumpet things that are years away from production or otherwise give Intel unnecessary clues about what they're up to. Intel... well, we were supposed to have 10GHz P4's by now...
Sure, they are the favorite this year, but do they have the R&D budget Intel has to remain competative in the long term?
Is the same management in charge of Intel's R&D budget? Looks that way. Besides, there's the law of diminishing returns at work. Plus AMD trades technology with IBM. Working with clueful partners is a heck of a lot more efficient than trying to do everything yourself (and pushing those potential partners into the AMD camp).
Re:Intel cooler than AMD! (Score:5, Informative)
*AHEM*
AMD readies multigate transistor for 45-nm node [eetimes.com] (Sept 18, 2003).
Happy now?
Re:Intel cooler than AMD! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Intel cooler than AMD! (Score:1)
Especially concerning the timeline, AMD introduced the technology AND will have it available 2 years sooner than Intel.
I'm pretty sure that AMD knows their processors run kind of hot, and probably have the R&D guys working on it, even if they aren't making as much noise as Intel is about it.
Less noise, or just at a different time? (Score:2)
Intel makes press release.
Other than the timing, is there much difference at all?
I don't see Intel making a bigger or smaller stink than AMD, just at a different time.
AMD definitely knows what they are doing and so does Intel. It's not surprising both companies are working on similar things.
Re:Intel cooler than AMD! (Score:1)
Re:Intel cooler than AMD! (Score:1)
Not fully 3D (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not fully 3D (Score:2, Interesting)
You get Perpendicular [hitachigst.com]
I instantly thought of this when thinking about the Intel thing.
Re:Not fully 3D (Score:2)
Oh! So it's like that Mach 3 razor with the three parallel blades.
Re:Not fully 3D (Score:4, Insightful)
In real estate business there are 3 important factors: Location, Location , Location
In semiconductor industry (which is becoming a commodity), there are 3 factors as well: Cost, Cost, Cost
You mentioned about the heat issue. Yes it is important. But no one said you can't solve it. You can have structures which can distribute heat out (e.g. heat pipes). You can also have circuit techniques which are by default more process tolerant as well as low power (eg. asynchronous circuits). Both solutions wouldn't solve the problem completely, but yes it will be a step ahead. Then why don't do it. Industry still hasn't figured out if the cost to develop these techniques will harness them enough profit as compared to pushing the conventional techniques.
Also know one said that you can't extract 1000 W/cm^2 in ICs. It will just cost quite a bit.
So yes your point is well taken, but don't undermine the industrial goals. Profit comes first.
Re:Not fully 3D (Score:2)
Re:Not fully 3D (Score:2)
3 Years! (Score:1)
History repeats, again (Score:5, Funny)
three gates? or just one big one? (Score:4, Interesting)
Secondly, it's not really that they have three gates. It's that they have a block of silicon that can conduct from source to drain, and a gate in the middle of it that can deplete/enrich the adjacent silicon to change its conductivity. Where most FETs have the gate on one surface, or 1/4 of the conduction channel's surface area, this one has a gate that stretches around 3/4 of the channel's surface area. Instead of gating like stepping on a hose, this gates like clamping the hose with pliers (for analogy = depletion-mode). Pretty cool, but that should come with a 3x increase in the gate's capacitance, shouldn't it? and fighting capacitance is one of the major struggles of increased speed, right? People doing very low-power stuff should love this. People doing high-speed design, maybe not so much.
Not really a drawback (Score:5, Informative)
Not really a problem. The transconductance of a transistor is actually proportional to the charge induced in the channel, which in turn is proportional to the gate voltage (limited) and the capacitance. In other words, you aren't going to get more gain without also getting more capacitance. In other words, for a given gain the capacitance is the same, but the leakage is less. [1]
The other reason this isn't a problem for low power is that interconnect capacitance is much greater than gate capacitance for practical circuits.
[1] Size isn't much affected, because so many other features are much larger than the channel. Contacts and required spacings, for instance.
Re:Not really a drawback (Score:2)
Re:three gates? or just one big one? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:three gates? or just one big one? (Score:3, Interesting)
...and they're already obsolete. (Score:2)
Re:...and they're already obsolete. (Score:5, Interesting)
When a semiconducter producer like Intel announces stuff like in the article, it usually means they have a process that will work in mass production and can be available soon. Same goes for announcements from companies like IBM and AMD. So while they may be "obsolete" compared to what the cutting edge researchers are doing, they are definatly cutting edge for what can actually be used to make products actual people will use.
Precisely (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at Nanotubes. We STILL don't have any commercial produciton using Nanotubes going on and it's been about 15-20 YEARS in the making (depending on which start point you take). It started in 1985 with the discovery of fullerenes, the carbon buckyballs you hear about. Nanotubes themselves were orignally discovered in 1991. Since then there's been a lot of development in their uses and in their production, but still we do not see products on the market with them. I've a feeling we are getting close, but it's still years off.
That's just how it goes. There's a long time between something first being mesed with in a highly theoritical research context and it being something that we are all buying. It can be decades, hell it can be longer. How long have we been after fusion as a power source? 40 years? Maybe, MAYBE in another 20 we have it? Research is often not a fast process, it just takes lots of time trying things, learning, trying again, etc. It's not always osmething money can accelerate, sometimes it just takes a lot of time to do everything you need, sometimes you have to wait for development in other areas to make yours practical.
Either way, Intel's announcement is exciting for consumers because it's approaching the consumer level. Sounds like in 3-5 years we will be using thigns based on this. The GP's technology is neat, but nothing consumers should care about since at this point there's no prospect of consumer application. Perhaps in 10-30 years it'll be something to look at, but not now.
Re:Precisely (Score:2)
Re:Precisely (Score:1)
Re:Precisely (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Precisely (Score:1)
They don't. Developers involved keep very quiet. That's what makes industrial espionage so effective.
Re:Precisely (Score:2)
Unclear what the problem is. (Score:3, Insightful)
Tunnels sound very interesting. Leakage presumably has many causes, but would boil down to electrons leaving the desired path and going elsewhere. There MAY be ways of replacing the interconnects (which are usually just regular conductors) with superconductors, as superconductors should leak a lot less. (Resistance is a function of leakage, and superconductors have zero resistance.) This won't fix links on the silicon itself, but any improvement would be a good thing.
Re:Unclear what the problem is. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Unclear what the problem is. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Unclear what the problem is. (Score:2)
Be the electricity (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Be the electricity (Score:2)
Re:Be the electricity (Score:1)
Re:Be the electricity (Score:3, Funny)
Seriously.
Re:Be the electricity (Score:1)
After I get through this warpzone, I only have a few more levels to go.
Re:Be the electricity (Score:1)
Perfect timing (Score:3, Funny)
3D (Score:1)
Re:3D (Score:1, Informative)
Both FinFETs and Trigates are built on an SOI substrate ( silicon -oxide -silicon) whereas planar MOSFETs are built 'into' a silicon substrate; their channel is in the substrate, whereas the FinFETs' and trigates' is in the top layer of silicon. Trigate FETs are 3-D because the Si channel is 3-D with the gate wrapped around it on the top, front and back. Because it is 3D, it does not suffer from the short channel effects that planar MOSFETs do (due to an intrinsic channel ie no doping requ
where is indium phosphide ? (Score:2)
Re:where is indium phosphide ? (Score:2)
Re:where is indium phosphide ? (Score:2)
Also indium nitride.
In the 1950s (Score:3)
Yes I know they were thermionic and not solid state, but the physics is much the same.
Since there is a HUMUNGOUS mount of prior art and this is "OBVIOUS TO ALL SKILLED PRACTITIONERS IN THE ART" provided they are over the age of 50, I hope they have not been given a patent for this.
Re:In the 1950s (Score:2)
Actually, let me refine that. I would be surprised if they were awarded a patent for the process. I suspect that "trade secret" would be a much more appropriate method of protecting their work.
3D Semiconductors (Score:1)