Intel Claims 10Ghz Transistor 116
Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary writes: "Intel has developed a new CMOS chip technology
that cranks out 10Ghz, 400 million transistors per
chip, with each transistor only 3 atoms thick,
previously thought impossible. See story
at
Dial Electronics
" While this story's rather fluffy, it makes it sound like Intel is a few years ahead of it's earlier projection of reaching 10Ghz by 2005. Of course, maybe they meant integrated into actual chips;) (in which case 2005 still sounds nice).
Re:What's this? (Score:1)
I read them a long time ago, but something about how it was quicker for the information to be manipulated on this vast, multinoded energy based network instead of the silicon circuitry of typical hardware.
Who knows? Maybe Card's insights were more than just a really good read?
Re:Cosmic rays? (Score:1)
> purify it and get rid of all the isotopes that
> do decay and you're left with something pretty
> hard to get anything through.
[Ignoring the fact that lead is electrically conductive, and would therefore make a really bad chip casing...]
This would mean that the material that your computer was built from would have to have its isotopes separated using a centrifuge or a calutron. This would make your computer pound for pound the same price as weapons-grade uranium since the same process would have to be used (though for the opposite effect). Anybody know what the going rate for U238 is? I'm afraid my Sears catalog doesn't list it. ;-)
--
Typical Intel strategy (Score:2)
"Science Fiction" (Score:1)
I can see it now... They end up using the first test model of this marvelous processor at a UN conference, and as you said, the electrons jump into the wrong stream... The following ensues:
George Bush: We welcome Russia into our boussom!
Translation: We (electrions start jumping) are here to inform you that we are taking over your weakling country!
*grins*
Re:Cosmic rays? (Score:2)
I found this:
"Recently there has been increased emphasis on radiation effects in space due to an increasing number of satellite launches for commercial and defense systems. The natural space environment can damage electronics because of total-ionizing-dose and single-event effects (SEE). These are caused by the high energy electrons, protons, and heavy ions that are intrinsic to the space environment due to cosmic rays and the Earth's radiation belts. SEE due to cosmic rays and high-energy protons can lead to hard or soft errors in many types of devices and ICs. SEE are even possible in avionics and ground applications of advanced microelectronics with submicron feature sizes. SEE can cause failure at any point during a system's lifetime due to one inopportune particle strike, if circuits and systems are not suitably designed, tested, and built. Total dose effects accumulate over a system's lifetime, and can lead to premature performance degradation and system failure."
There are some interesting links on this at the Sandia Labs website here [sandia.gov]. Some of these go to sites that are a bit encyclopedic.
Re:some thoughts (Score:1)
-Chris
...More Powerful than Otto Preminger...
How much faster can it get? (Score:2)
When you get up to 10 Ghz, the distance is only 1 cm- and aren't your typical Pentiums and Athlons bigger than that?
So how fast can they realistically improve clock speeds before going back to the drawing board?
Re:Interference at 10GHz should be slight. (Score:1)
Re:atom movement (Score:1)
The EPR gedanken experiment disproves _local_ hidden variables, there are non-local theories which are too confusing for me, have not been disproved. See the sci.physics FAQ for more info (there are sci.physics mirrors everywhere, but rtfm.mit.edu is a useful one to rememeber for access to any FAQ).
FP.
--
10GHz Transistors (Score:3)
Actually, academics have created 100GHz transistors out of GaAs. 10GHz isn't that great compared to these ultra-fast ones
However, the distinction may be that this is the fastest corporate-built transistor, and it might be the first semi-integrable one. I don't know the details of either development.
Maybe this is using Si? I forget the frequency limit of silicon, but this may be the fastest silicon transistor ever built.
A new year calls for a new signature.
silicon is relatively slow (Score:3)
However gallium arsenide, indium something,
have potential considerably beyond 10GHz and
are being used for high speed D/A and optical
connections. The problem with the non-silicon
stuff is they are harder to fabricate in very
high integration. They tend to be two or more
integration genrations behind CMOS.
Re:How much faster can it get? (Score:2)
One thing that most people overlook is that Moore's Law is _not_ about processor speed, or throughput, but is actually about _gate density_.
Therefore we should hope to see the functional blocks become smaller as time progresses, so that their output is still available before the next clock edge where it will be routed to the next functional unit in the pipeline.
Note - frequencies have increased faster than densities, so at the moment it looks like it's a losing battle, however, this will simply force chip designers to come up with more fine-grained functional units (and possibly to expect mutiple clock tick latencies between some of the functional units). For example, DEC in their Alpha chips were looking at this kind of design, and AFAIR they were the first people to demonstrate the >1GHz general purpose CPU _many_ years ago (not a production system, a specially cooled unit as proof of principle), which bears out the correlation. (OK, it (the 21164) never reached production at that speed, but what the hell, they had newer chip designs to work on instead).
THL
--
Re:atom movement - not true (Score:2)
IANAP (physicist), but I believe that there is some (albeit small) uncertainty with atom positions. I believe that tunneling of hydrogen atoms is how fracto-fusion works. Now, it may well be that it's greatly more probable with a hydrogen atom than a helium atom (and from what I understand, it's not too common with hydrogen atoms), but it does occur.
Never is too strong. There is a finite probability that it could. It might be so unlikely that it would occur, on average, once in 5 billion ages of the Universe, but it could happen.
---
Re:atom movement (Score:1)
That's why I didn't mention them initially, as they're in that grey area at the edge of science.
They are inelegant, i.e. lack one of the qualities that appeals to the scientist in me. They also have been formulated in such a way that a simple mathematician such as myself cannot fully understand them, so I can't even make a judgement from a position of knowledge.
OK, OK, I'll admit it, I think they're a hack too!
FP.
--
Re:Instantaneous, real-time voice translation? (Score:2)
Re:Instantaneous, real-time voice translation? (Score:1)
Re:atom movement (Score:1)
Note that I am not an expert in this area by any means and only have one (albeit very intelligent) person's expertise to argue from (and I know his position on this is not widely popular or accepted). I do know that EPR results in a paradox (I remember this much from my undergraduate degree in physics).
Re:10GHz Transistors (Score:2)
Here's an abstract from 1991:
"Oscillations have been obtained at frequencies from 100 to 712 GHz in InAs/AlSb double-barrier resonant-tunneling diodes at room temperature. The measured power density at 360 GHz was 90 W cm-2, which is 50 times that generated by GaAs/AlAs diodes at essentially the same frequency. The oscillation at 712 GHz represents the highest frequency reported to date from a solid-state electronic oscillator at room temperature."
from E. R. Brown et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 58 2291-2293 (1991).
Re:atom movement (Score:1)
put them down somewhere, they randomly space shift somewhere else. i'll hafta remember that,
it's a good excuse.
Drach
Re:Instantaneous, real-time voice translation? (Score:1)
And this is why to human translators with German trying to deal listening funny is.
MRe:Dupe? (Score:1)
Re:Cosmic rays? (Score:1)
Well you stick something round the lead. Or something... And yeah, it would be expensive, but it would work. How much would it cost your business if data got corrupted randomly?
Re:This is definitely vapour (Score:2)
Re:One transistor is not many (Score:1)
Re:atom movement (Score:2)
No, otherwise its probability would be 1. If you prepare a system that has a 10:1 probability to be in a given state (say, you send light and arrange for it to be polarized at about 70 wrt to an analyzing polarizer) and repeat many times the experiment of measuring whether it is in that state (send many photons and detect how many pass through the analyzing polarizer), you'll find it is one time out of ten on average (10% of the photons will get through).
Re:Cosmic rays? (Score:1)
Everything is radioactive. You, me, a lead safe, the stuff they make chip casings out of, and even CowboyNeal. If the material came from Earth, and wasn't specifically treated at Los Alamos or some other weapon's factory, it will have the same proportions of radioactive isotopes.
--
Re:atom movement - not true (Score:2)
Large relative position uncertainty like you described only applies at the sub-atomic level. An entire atom has a predictable position in space and time. Need practical proof? Who has not seen the single-atom logo etches IBM and other research departments have been showing over the last decade? Or how about the nano-machines that are just a few atoms thick reported here on
Don't worry, your dinner table will never re-materialize a meter from where you were about to set your macaroni.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Re:atom movement (Score:1)
But at a subatomic level, it's already dettermined which way the light will be polarised. It's like tossing a coin, you think it's random but at the atomic level it's predetermined which way it goes.
What's commonly known as probability is just how likely something is to happen in a large sample, not how likely one thing is. It's not the same thing.
Re:One transistor is not many (Score:1)
Re:Interference at 10GHz should be slight. (Score:1)
Re:Cosmic rays? (Score:1)
Seperating different elements is relatively straightforward (though getting anything 9.999998% pure probably ain't that easy) since they will have different chemical properties. Seperating different isotopes of the same element (e.g. to make uranium with mostly U235 which is the stuff you need for bombs) is more difficult since all you have to work with is the small difference in mass between the isotopes, so you might use a centifuge or some kind of diffusion based process.
Removing the radioactive isotopes from your lead to make non radioactive lead would need processes similar to those for producing weapons grade uranium, rather than producing pure GaAs (which will contain Ga and As atoms of a mixture of isotopes).
Re:How much faster can it get? (Score:1)
Re:One transistor is not many (Score:1)
Re:How much faster can it get? (Score:2)
Pipelining takes care of that; even if the information cannot physically cross the chip end-to-end within one clock cycle, what counts is the time required to cross one set of logic gates (one "stage" of the pipeline). Even though one elementary operation takes more than one clock cycle to complete, you can "feed" the pipeline so that you actually get one result every clock cycle except at the beginning.
Re:Ten gigahertz? (Score:1)
We need smaller atoms (Score:1)
Re:Cosmic rays? (Score:1)
1. Consider the artifical scarcity. President Carter signed an executive order that specificly disallowed reuse of fissonable fuels because it would lead to weapons grade materials. US nuclear energy has never recovered. Perhaps the world is a safer place.
Consider the storage costs. My university recieved fissonable materials for free, and now can't afford to store them or dispose of them.
The "cost" is *not* one of manufacturing.
Interconnect chips at 50 Ghz (Score:2)
Pipelining and some random silliness (Score:2)
Mispredicted branches also cause a significant performance drop with pipelining. The CPU doesn't know for sure whether or not it's going to branch until the branch reaches the end of the pipeline. Until then it has to more or less guess based on previously results (or in the simpler case, just always predict "taken" or "not taken") and, if the prediction is determined to be wrong, it must clear out all the partially executed instructions.
Another performance hit is loading data and then attempting to immediatly use that data. Since the load operation takes a couple cycles (memory is relatively slow compared to a CPU), the operation that wants to use that data has to be stalled, creating a gap of a few null cycles between the load and that operation. It's not as bad as a mispredicted branch, but it can be avoided by a smart CPU/compiler combination that places the load operation a few instructions earlier and then works on other stuff while it waits for its results.
Pipelined processors are nifty stuff. It's surprising how conceptually easy a simple one is.
And on a random sidenote, my epiphany on pipelining came when I realized that it's kind of like a fast-food drive-through with multiple windows. A given customer may have a higher latency (because they have to go through that whole start/stop, start/stop non-sense), but the throughput is higher, which sounds like it's only benefiting the store at the cost of the customers. But then I realized that the higher through-put meant that there was less of a backup of people waiting, which benefited the customers. Of course I'm still trying to figure out the corollary for a mispredicted branch. I one day hope to be driving by only to see a little guy in a bulldozer pushing cars out of the line. Then my life will be complete.
hmm...3 atoms, eh? (Score:1)
Re:atom movement (Score:1)
In fact it's proven entirely incorrect by the avent of Bell's theorem testing experiments. Hidden variables theories obey a particular inequality known as Bell's inequality which is to do with the probability of correlations between two entangled particles. Quantum Mechanics violates this inequality, and, as has been measured in several experiments, so does the real world.
Re:We need smaller atoms (Score:2)
Re:silicon is relatively slow (Score:1)
You are right, GaAs and InP can be very fast, but they are harder to fabricate: smaller wafers (hence fewer chip fabrication rates), higher costs, and more generally a few decades of technology development to catch up compared to silicon.
And this is problematic not only for fast electronics but also for active optical components, especially semiconductor lasers and amplifiers; silicon is a poor emitter of light due to its indirect-gap structure (in an E-k diagram, the bottom of the conduction band is not directly above the top of the valence band), so we have to use GaAs or even more expensive InP, especially for lasers in the 1.55micron wavelength range, i.e. the choice wavelength for long-range transmission over fiber optic...
(And, as with electronics, some researchers are trying to push the limits of silicon: there have been recent results with Si quantum-dot structures which were able to lase. But wouldn't it be easier in the long run to push GaAs technology?)
Cosmic rays? (Score:2)
If so, we'd need to think about employing a lossy grid of gates, so that a few failures don't kill the processor.
--
Re:10Ghz transister, not CPU! (Score:3)
IIRC, there have been 8GHz transistors (or mosfets) available for a few years now. Nowhere near that small, but they exist. I think this is more a publicity stunt from Intel, trying to claw back some custom from AMD.
Dupe? (Score:2)
2005 is just too far away for me to get excited anyway..
--
atom movement (Score:5)
Every atom has a certain frequent movement. Objects consisting of a large number of atoms stay in one place because the movement of all those atoms combined adds up to zero.
Theoretically, it's not impossible that your dinnertable would suddenly be a couple of meters away from its original place. But it's the statistics that make such an event impossible in practice.
When creating objects very small - consisting of only a few atoms - the movement of every atom get's more important. Chances that the movement of one or more atoms influences the behavior of the object itself (in a way that its behavior is not predictable anymore) are a reality when creating transitors this small.
Therefore I'm amazed by the comment of the Intel scientist that these transistors behave just like other - bigger - devices.
10Ghz transister, not CPU! (Score:3)
A 10Ghz transister can only make a 10Ghz CPU if each pipeline stage (plus sync overhead) is only a single transister. Which is pretty impossable (a simple flip flop is several transistors, an adder is a big pile of them). As I recall the failed 500Mhz PowerPC that some compony like "eXponential" was making was thought to be extreamly aggressave with only 50 or so transitor delays between pipe stages (and some pipe stages were mostly wire delay to get the signals from one part of the chip to another!). Or maybe I'm confusing that with sombody or others barrel processer style MediaCPU (also out of bisness).
Tiny transistors are wonderflu. Tiny fast transistors are more wonderful. But 10Ghz transistors are no where close to letting you make a 10Ghz CPU. In fact it might be slower then current state of the art (but smaller). Something in this story doesn't add up.
Re:How to get +5 (Score:1)
moore's law (Score:1)
don't worry they are not going to roll out 10ghz tommorrow night
Re:10Ghz transister, not CPU! (Score:5)
- dave f.
Re:atom movement (Score:1)
Now what you say is true of fluids, and ideal gases in particular. But not solids.
However, like you said, migration is an issue in certian situations. When atoms are not held in place by chemical bonds they can indeed float around. Gold from a plated PWB will leech into the lead of a solder joing, brittling it.
I'd be more concerned about ESD. With such a thin gate insulator, these FETs are going to be extremely ESD sensitive. They're going to suffer punch-through at very low static voltages, since the field strength in the region of the insulator is going to be astronomical due to the short insulator length [Field strength = (applied voltage)/(distance between charges)]
Re:Dupe? (Score:1)
Ahh well, who wants karma anyway?
--
This is definitely vapour (Score:3)
Re:Dupe? (Score:1)
Re:10Ghz transister, not CPU! (Score:2)
So the transistor might be much faster.
Interference at 10GHz (Score:3)
Also at these sort of frequencies you have to use microstrip waveguides to carry your signals, as standard wires don't work so good, so would interconnects and the like have to be redesigned?
Anyway, most computers are limited by memory bandwidth nowadays, and 10GHz chips only makes this worse. To get performance up a lot it would probably be better to improve the memory clock by a factor of ten than the raw processor speed.
Re:Cosmic rays? (Score:1)
Well sticking a case on the processor would help. At least, as much as anything would. You could just imagine, tiny processors with a ten inch lead (as in the purified non-radioactive stuff) case round them.
Come to think of it, I bet that's what the real reason for cooling fans is. They could easily make processors not get hot, but they make people buy huge cooling fans instead to make more money.
Just remember, you read it here first.
Re:One transistor is not many (Score:1)
Germanium (Ge)? Gallium arsenide (GaAs)?
You are correct that you can't have a semiconductor with only one atom. Even several atoms can't make it because in fact the energy bands (between which the gap is) are made up of many discrete states, each of which has a given energy. There are about as many of these in a band as there are atoms in the crystal. So, to get real (quasi-)continuous bands on each side of the gap, you need to have a macroscopic number of atoms.
Now, first, I didn't say that this IBM thing worked the same way as a semiconductor; I really don't remember the details and may very well be mistaken.
Second, these single-atom or three-atomic-layer systems are never isolated, they are always on a whole chip of their own, and this is going to have an energy-band diagram.
Re:Cosmic rays? (Score:1)
--
Re:Interference at 10GHz (Score:1)
Actually most mobile phones operate in the 900MHz and 1800 or 1900MHz ranges, AFAIK.
Re:One transistor is not many (Score:1)
What the article says is that the transisters are 3 atoms thick and 30nm wide.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Re:atom movement (Score:2)
Not according to quantum physics, which states that particles are probabilistic even down to the subatomic level. What is deterministic is a system's wave function, which yields the probability of the system being in a given state at a given time.
Maybe you are referring to the "hidden variables" interpretation, which is quite controversial and almost debunked (see this "Layman's guide to quantum physics [higgo.com]").
Re:atom movement (Score:2)
Macroscopic samples may contain a large set of items, depending on size and type of measurement may generally be on the quantum (probabilistic) or macroscopic (observably deterministic) scales. But the macroscopic statistics don't affect the fact that when you get down to the quantum level, to the best of modern science's ability to explain, things are not deterministic.
For the sake of edification, there are theories called hidden variable theories in quantum mechanics that attempt to remove probability from microscopic systems and posit that in fact we simply have insufficient knowledge about the way such systems really work. No such theories have been adequately proved to this point in time.
Subatomic transistors? (Score:1)
And the transistors will get smaller and smaller as always. But for a transistor to work, electrons has to be able to flow through it, right? And it must be able to alter its conductivity as well. So how small can these transistors actually be? How would a transistor work if it was smaller than 3 atoms - or even smaller than 1 atom?
Re:Interference at 10GHz (Score:1)
True, there can be 0.9GHz components in the data when the clock frequency is 10GHz, but that could be a problem even with present processor speeds.
In case I'm completely wrong, please correct me :-)
--
Re:This is definitely vapour (Score:1)
Re:atom movement (Score:3)
This is why Quantum Mechanics caused such a stir when it was first posited. Even some of the best minds in the world refused to believe that the state of something could remain undecided.
The spin/polarisation/whatever _is_ unknown, and is described by a complex (x+iy) probability function, only upon measurement does the spin/whatever briefly enter a known state, but this precision starts to fade instantly. The real probability of it being in a particular state is the absolute value, or amplitude, |x+iy| = sqrt(x^2+y^2) of the complex wave function.
For example, it has been shown that you can artificially keep particles with a constant spin by continually testing their spin. As you test it you get a true/false result, meaning that you've either got the spin you want, or you have the opposite. If you test it again almost instantly, the wave function hasn't had enough time to make the opposite state particularly likely, and so you almost always get the same spin result, time after time after time.
FatPhil
--
Re:Ten gigahertz? (Score:3)
Re:Ten gigahertz? (Score:1)
Re:Hello, computer (Score:1)
Re:10Ghz transister, not CPU! (Score:2)
Which doesn't really matter, since the article is talking about enabling CPUs to work at 10GHz, not about 10GHz transistors.
----------
Re:10GHz Transistors (Score:1)
Re:How much faster can it get? (Score:2)
Of course, that's not to say that it's not an issue -- it will make things a lot harder to implement. But, then, every time the clock period goes down, it makes things harder. Designers just sit down and find another way to do things faster
----------
Re:Interference at 10GHz should be slight. (Score:1)
If I assume it is pretty close to the speed of light, then the wave length would be... oh. never mind.
Re:Ten gigahertz? (Score:1)
Re:atom movement - not true (Score:1)
Re:10Ghz transister, not CPU! (Score:2)
At this point, instead of increasing cpu speed, I feel it would be better to focus on SMP and tweaking the other parts of a PC. A faster northbridge and better system bus would relieve important bottlenecks in the PC architecture with a much greater impact than processor speed alone. Just look at all the speed freaks (myself included) who prefer to keep an older cpu but upgrade everything else.
Here's my personal example : I have a Celeron 566 @ 850. Slow according to today's standards, but good enough for everything I do and it runs every game out there. On the other hand, I've got a Geforce2 GTS, 512mb ram, IDE-Raid 80gb, 8x Plextor cdr, Boomslang mouse, yadda yadda. My main CPU is just decent but I cranked everything else to the max. Instead of having a fast cpu that just spends more time waiting for the hardware, I have fast hardware that lets me work and play faster without needing to stay on the bleeding edge of AMD/Intel wars. Sure, I could visit my little chinese dude and his grotty parts shop to pick up an Athlon-C 1.2ghz with mobo and pc266 ram, and my Q3 framerate might jump from 110 to 130, but overall will I get anything done faster ? Only marginally, since the cpu will spend more time snoring while every other component chugs along as the same speeds since 1994. On the other hand I'll be the first guy in town to get my hands on a Geforce3, not because I'm a gamer, but because it will make a more noticeable _perceptive_ difference than spending the same amount on a CPU. I don't care what the benchmarks say, my PC feels just as slow as my P200 did three years ago, and my 486 before that. It's everything else that's been steadily progressing over the years; video, disk, memory, sound. That's what really makes a difference to my eyes and ears. GHz-wars just look good on paper and in Intel's bank account, nowhere else.
Overclock to 10.5GHz and use it a transmitter (Score:1)
Re:Interference at 10GHz should be slight. (Score:2)
Re:atom movement (Score:1)
some thoughts (Score:3)
Just came back from the future (Score:1)
One transistor is not many (Score:2)
Indeed, the more energy they have and the thinner the isolation between "wires", the easier it gets for them to "hop" over the latter. By then anything can happen, bits leaking from one memory cell to the next, calculation errors...
They may be on the right path, but the way to go is quite long.
Re:10Ghz transister, not CPU! (Score:1)
Re:Cosmic rays? (Score:1)
THL
--
Re:10GHz Transistors (Score:1)
If my memory serves correctly (and it's normally pretty reliable), it was about 18 months ago, and they weren't just showcasing transistors, but were showing off shift registers operating at 100GHz. Still not a full-blown processor, but a necessary component. I think the details were published in `Nature' (because I was a subscriber at the time- go to www.nature.com [nature.com] if you've got an active subscription or £120 going begging). I can't remember much more though- it was pretty much "100GHz chips, Film at 11" non-news.
I'm just going to be happy when my local shop delivers that dual P3-700 for the Casino-21 project (remember that?).
Re:One transistor is not many (Score:1)
I didn't think one atom was possible, at least for conventional stuff. I thought semiconductors worked because of a group of atoms (usually silicon or that ge thing I can't spell) with covalent bonding, where a gap appears for electrons to get through. So unless you put them in groups I'd have thought two atoms would be the minimum...
Re:Cosmic rays? (Score:1)
Nope, read the link [science.uva.nl] in my parent post. It shows that the main source of alpha radiation is from the chip casings. Not a whole lot you can do about that.
--
Re:Interference at 10GHz should be slight. (Score:1)
Now, because the copper wire is full of electrons, if you push one in one side, a different one will pop out the other shortly thereafter. Maybe that is the 0.3c speed you were talking about.
Re:atom movement (Score:1)
Yeah, but the most probable thing always happens, doesn't it? At the atomic level anyway. So whilst the atoms could be (and are) everywhere at the same time, there's one place they're most likely to be, so that's where they will be.
Re:atom movement (Score:2)
Instantaneous, real-time voice translation? (Score:3)
Somehow I can't see how the speed of the transistors can help with the fact that you usually have to wait until the end of sentences before translating, you cannot just do it word by word.
--
Re:atom movement (Score:2)
FatPhil
--
Re:We need smaller atoms (Score:2)
AMD (Score:2)
Re:Typical Intel strategy (Score:2)
But as far as the assertion that Intel is an awful place to work, this is easily debunked by looking at Fortune's Best Places to Work list, where Intel is #41, ahead of every computer company including the ones you listed - HP is all the way down at #63, and Compaq and IBM aren't even in the top 100.
Re:atom movement - not true (Score:2)
At most, your table might rearrange itself enough to let a couple protons through, although even that is highly unlikely.
Re:Pipelining and some random silliness (Score:2)
Re:10Ghz transister, not CPU! (Score:3)