Breaking News
News & Analysis

IBM Fellow: Moore's Law defunct

4/7/2009 10:00 PM EDT
6 comments
NO RATINGS
Page 1 / 2 Next >
More Related Links
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Simonstar
User Rank
Author
re: IBM Fellow: Moore's Law defunct
Simonstar   5/10/2012 4:10:53 AM
NO RATINGS
With Moore's law coming to an end and exponential growth slowing down for chips, perhaps in the near future we will only see a handful of micro chip manufacturers and semi conductors in the world. Only the biggest companies are able to pay the high price of research, and the others might be forced out of the market altogether. Simon - http://www.starrausten.com

Eagle Driver
User Rank
Author
re: IBM Fellow: Moore's Law defunct
Eagle Driver   4/1/2010 7:42:26 PM
NO RATINGS
I think it's more of a realization of business economics. Today's entry level system would to considered a super computer just 10 years ago. With the explosion of on-line work and games and the current economic calamities, processor prowess is no longer the envy of all users like it used to be. Very few are in need of the cutting edge CPUs and the profits are dried up in this arena, so development will slow down, not solely due to flaws in Moores law.

tpfj
User Rank
Author
re: IBM Fellow: Moore's Law defunct
tpfj   4/1/2010 2:38:01 PM
NO RATINGS
I fear this is a case of "fox crying wolf". He may well be right, but no one is listening anymore.

Ozzie013
User Rank
Author
re: IBM Fellow: Moore's Law defunct
Ozzie013   4/25/2009 3:32:02 AM
NO RATINGS
For general semiconductor technology, new system and chip packaging must pave the way for silicon optimization. For processor specific implementations, novel ways to incorporate memory into the intrinsic architecture must be found.

FDunn3
User Rank
Author
re: IBM Fellow: Moore's Law defunct
FDunn3   4/22/2009 12:57:12 PM
NO RATINGS
How many times have we heard that and yet somehow someone always finds a way around it. Really this is getting old.

dirk.bruere
User Rank
Author
re: IBM Fellow: Moore's Law defunct
dirk.bruere   4/8/2009 6:08:53 PM
NO RATINGS
I recently threw out an old IEEE Proceedings mag from the early 80s which had a couple of articles explaining on sound theoretical grounds why Moore's Law would soon cease. Apparently, reducing features below 100nm was fundamentally impossible.

Most Recent Comments
michigan0
 
SteveHarris0
 
realjjj
 
SteveHarris0
 
SteveHarris0
 
VicVat
 
Les_Slater
 
SSDWEM
 
witeken
Most Recent Messages
9/25/2016
4:48:30 PM
michigan0 Sang Kim First, 28nm bulk is in volume manufacturing for several years by the major semiconductor companies but not 28nm FDSOI today yet. Why not? Simply because unlike 28nm bulk the LDD(Lightly Doped Drain) to minimize hot carrier generation can't be implemented in 28nm FDSOI. Furthermore, hot carrier reliability becomes worse with scaling, That is the major reason why 28nm FDSOI is not manufacturable today and will not be. Second, how can you suppress the leakage currents from such ultra short 7nm due to the short channel effects? How thin SOI thickness is required to prevent punch-through of un-dopped 7nm FDSOI? Possibly less than 4nm. Depositing such an ultra thin film less then 4nm filum uniformly and reliably over 12" wafers at the manufacturing line is extremely difficult or not even manufacturable. If not manufacturable, the 7nm FDSOI debate is over!Third, what happens when hot carriers are generated near the drain at normal operation of 7nm FDSOI? Electrons go to the positively biased drain with no harm but where the holes to go? The holes can't go to the substrate because of the thin BOX layer. Some holes may become trapped at the BOX layer causing Vt shift. However, the vast majority of holes drift through the the un-dopped SOI channel toward the N+Source,...

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed