- The last node with classical (dennard) scaling was 130 nm. Beyond that it was required to change the device.
- The last node where the price per transistor was reduced by scaling apparently is 28 nm.
What exactly makes moores law? It's definitely possible to go beyond 28 nm. On the other hand it is certainly also possible to introduce cost reduced variants of the 28 nm node to drive the economical side further.
Survey bias can occur even with sophisticated responders. I would like to hear the arguments from those who think Moore's Law is already dead at 28 nm. If there were no economic advantage to going smaller than 28 nm, then why did anyone bother to do it and to make those huge investments?
28nm is the last node of Moore's Law. I wrote a full length blog why it is so base on the avaiable open information - <http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1321536&>
As to the question why people are still going for 20nm and 14nm I don't have a good answer. Some justify it for the lower power and higher speed that those noodes provide. Moore's Law is stricly about lower cost and that stop at 28nm.
I'm no expert, but if i do (22/14)**2 it makes 246% meaning you can pack 2,5x more transistors on the same 300mm wafer; so even with a 20% higher cost per transistor, there's still a very respectable margin ?
There is too much association with lithography, and that is definitely hitting the wall abruptly, as now even EUV would require (at least) double patterning. Moore's law in the product functionality sense could go on, enabled by other technologies. But we need to free ourselves of the yoke of scaling silicon.
When I was interviewed by a semiconductor company in December 1999, their stock was increasing rapidly. I was the only one to raise my hand and ask: "We're all engineers here. We know that physically, these exponential phenomena end up tapering at some point. When do you think this will end?" Their answer was never, and the stock market's answer was less than a month later (in fact, it took a nice dive).
I seriously think that the trend will simply decelerate as the physical complexities get in the way. People have been very smart, so I don't expect the current challenges to prevent improvements, but I also do think that it will slow the pace down.
There are some theoretical limits - at least within the bounds of physics as we know it today. Thermodynamics sets some limits on the rate of computation, while quantum mechanics sets some limitation on how fast information can be conveyed into and out of a computer.
Scientific American discussed this in 2011. Scientific American refers to the 1982 paper by Charles Bennett(no relation), which gives the thermodyamic basis of computation, but no prediction of the end of Moore's Law. A more recent paper on the thermodynamic aspects reportedly suggests Moore's law has 60-80 years left.
This 2000 paper by Seth Lloyd, considering the limits imposed by the speed of light, the quantum scale and the gravitational constant, is more optimistic, suggesting we had up to 250 years of Moore's law left.
"Moore's Law" isn't a law at all. It's a prediction. Ohm's law is a real law in that it has been proven and so far is irrefutable. I would even say that laws enacted by governments aren't really laws because they are refutable by the courts and can be reversed. Those "laws" are more like rules.
Moore's Law or Prediction had a ten year life and expired in 1975. At that time it became and has remained Moore's wish or goal.
The goal was lower cost and higher performance including speed, and reduced power.
Moore's Goal has been served by inventions since 1975 unto this day.
It will almost certainly continue somewhere where there are creative people able to invent out of the box without losing their invention to the latest so called reform Patent Law awaiting approval in the Senate this week, The Troll Law, paid for and benefitting Apple, Google, Microsoft and IBM at our expense.
POET (Planar Opto Electronic) Technology already answers Moore's Law today.
They found a way to combine all electrical and optical components on one chip with an imbedded vertical emitting laser. Disruptive advances in performance, power savings, and decreased manufacturing cost are the tip of the iceberg.
If you have a PhD in EE or Physics you may understand this incredible presentation by Dr. Geoff Taylor of UCONN.
If you think this sounds is too good to be true, don't take my word for it, here is the link to Dr. Taylor talking at the Empire Club of Canada below. Just to put in perspective, only world leaders and industry innovators are invited to talk here. Bill Gates and Michael Dell were asked to speak here at the beginning of their careers.
I echo those who have mentioned POET Technologies. It is a little known company with a massive breaktrough in semiconductors. I urge anyone interested in this topic to research....2014 appears to be the "coming out" of this tech.
It amazes me when I see all the articles on the end of Moore's law and none of them ever mention POET. There are going to be some tech writers scratching their heads when they realize the biggest revolution in semiconductor industry snuck by them while they were still touting hybrid silicon and graphene as the alternatives. POET is going to be the solution. Everything industry will try in the future will all lead them back to POET as the only viable solution.
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for today’s commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.