Breaking News
Comments
mcgrathdylan
User Rank
Blogger
Surprise
mcgrathdylan   7/11/2013 12:36:25 PM
NO RATINGS
It was a surprise to me that so much of transistor performance improvement can be attributed directly to improvements in materials. Another example of how chip makers are going to enormous length to squeeze out every drop of performance.

goafrit
User Rank
Manager
Re: Surprise
goafrit   7/11/2013 3:32:36 PM
NO RATINGS
In chip design, your problem is particle plus yield. That is not a circuit problem under most circumstances. It also makes the case why inside foundry could help drive innovation since you can act faster to fix material and production issues compared to outsourcing manufacturing.

krisi
User Rank
CEO
really?
krisi   7/11/2013 7:16:57 PM
NO RATINGS
very surpsing claim, 90%...what about all circuit design trickes? say ARM vs Intel...or algorithmic improvements, see evolution of Mpeg standards....I wonder how Applied measured that number

mcgrathdylan
User Rank
Blogger
Re: really?
mcgrathdylan   7/11/2013 7:36:42 PM
NO RATINGS
I know what you mean. To tell the truth I'm not sure how they arrived at that number. Like I said, it surprised me too. Maybe we should take it with a grain of salt.

DrunkenSailor
User Rank
Rookie
Re: really?
DrunkenSailor   7/12/2013 3:43:05 AM
NO RATINGS
Well, if you don't look at the system level (where comparison is always tricky at best, just look at the current dispute "Intel beating ARM") people in chip manufacturing rate the technology in terms of plain transistor data like Ion/Ioff ratio, Gate leakage etc. Pretty much all the recent improvements there resulting in performance vs power gains came from material changes reducing leakage and improving carrier mobility. I would say 90% may sound a bit on the high side but looking at actual data for 45/40, 32/28 nm technologies this is quite true.

The design and system level aspect comes on top, otherwise Intels 22 nm products would plainly rule the world. Still they don't...

Tom Murphy
User Rank
Blogger
Re: really?
Tom Murphy   7/12/2013 12:27:33 PM
NO RATINGS
Yes, that 90 percent claim does beg a bit of clarification. Materials have always played a huge role in boosting performance...why is that so different now?  Isn't size still important, or is that now credited to materials? 

krisi
User Rank
CEO
Re: really?
krisi   7/12/2013 12:55:40 PM
NO RATINGS
The basic material is still the same (silicon)...if it was something dramatically different like graphen that would be another story...so what is new are some aspects of silicon engineering, strained channels, use of SiGe, new epi layers, 3D transistor nature etc

Tom Murphy
User Rank
Blogger
Re: really?
Tom Murphy   7/12/2013 1:02:26 PM
NO RATINGS
ON re-reading this story, it sounds like the 90 percent figure stems from the way materials are applied, not from the materials themselves.  It may sound like a slight difference, and I'm still a bit dubious, but here's what the story says (emphasis added):

Today, there are several epi steps in the semiconductor manufacturing process, Chu said. More are on the way, he told us, as chip vendors see the potential to improve the performance of their devices using this technology. Applied defines epitaxy as a method of depositing or growing a monocrystalline film where the deposited film takes on a lattice structure and orientation identical to those of the substrate.

mcgrathdylan
User Rank
Blogger
Re: really?
mcgrathdylan   7/12/2013 7:09:45 PM
NO RATINGS
I checked back with an Applied spokesperon on the 90 percent claim. This was her response:

"Applied works closely with customers to improve device performance and they calculate that up to 90% of the performance gains they are seeing today are being driven by new materials innovations and new device architectures compared to lithographic scaling."


Judge it how you will.

Tom Murphy
User Rank
Blogger
Re: really?
Tom Murphy   7/12/2013 8:29:09 PM
NO RATINGS
Still sounds like a sales pitch to me, but that's about what I'd expect from a marketing person for the company who's selling the stuff.  I still think it would be more credible coming from an outside ratings agency -- if such a thing exists for that.

AZskibum
User Rank
CEO
Re: really?
AZskibum   7/15/2013 12:30:38 PM
NO RATINGS
If your focus is strictly at the transistor level and improving transistor performance, then maybe you can claim a figure like 90%. But at the SoC level, the system architecture, algorithms, etc. -- the design, not the devices -- has far more impact on power and performance than any transistor-level improvements.



Flash Poll
EE Life
Frankenstein's Fix, Teardowns, Sideshows, Design Contests, Reader Content & More
Max Maxfield

MSGEQ7-Based DIY Audio Spectrum Analyzer: Testing
Max Maxfield
8 comments
In my previous column on this topic, we discussed the step-by-step construction of the first pass at a MSGEQ7-based DIY audio spectrum analyzer for use in my BADASS Display project. Of ...

Karen Field

June 2014 Cartoon Caption Winner
Karen Field
13 comments
Congratulations to "Wnderer" for submitting the winning caption for our June cartoon, after much heated conversation by our judges, given the plethora of great entries.

Jeremy Cook

Inspection Rejection: Why More Is Less in a Vision System
Jeremy Cook
3 comments
Albert Einstein has been quoted as saying, "Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler." I would never claim to have his level of insight -- or such an awesome head of ...

Jeremy Cook

Machine Fixes That Made Me Go 'DUH!'
Jeremy Cook
21 comments
As you can see in my bio at the end of this article, I work as a manufacturing engineer. One of my favorite things that happens on a Friday late in the afternoon is to hear my phone ring ...

Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)