I disagree with Colwell"s statement,"when Moore's law stops it will be economics that stops it, not physics". Based on the transistor physics, the short channel effect or transistor leakage current will increase as the transistor is scaled. Today we have only three process technologies: Bulk Si, FDSOI and FinFET. Bulk Si technology is in high volume manufacturing at the 28nm node for several years by major semiconductor companies, and may extend to the 22nm, but with excessive transistor leakage current, thus definitely not beyond the 22nm. FDSOI is invented by IBM more than 10 years ago, but not manufacturable at any technology node yet mainly because Soitech, the largest SOI wafer supplier can't deliver 7nm thin SOI that is required for the 28nm node. It means that FDSOI is already dead and Bulk Si will be dead at the 28nm, not because of "the money" for manufacturing but because of device physics. FinFET is the only technology in volume manufacturing today at the 22nm by Intel, and the 14nm will be manufactured sometime in 2014. The beauty of FinFET technology is that it can extend to the end of scaling or even to the 1nm node according to FinFET physics. In order to overcome the short channel effect the Fin width, W is equal to the gate length, Lg is required. Or W(Fin width)=Lg(gate length). It means that for the gate length, Lg=3nm, the Fin width W=3nm is only require to overcome the short channel effect. The Fin width, W here is equivalent to the channel thickness for the conventional transistor. Therefore, FinFET will be able to extend to the 3nm node by 2030s beyond the 7nm by 2022. Multiple exposures are used today by Intel for the 22nm FinFET manufacturing. With availability of EUV and 450mm wafers possibly at 14nm, 8nm and 3nm nodes the manufacturing cost per die and per transistor will be significantly reduced. There is no alternative to FinFET today. Moore's Law will be alive to the end of FinFET scaling. SKim
I agree. The fact that relativistic physics is needed to explain the observed orbit of Mercury does not prevent us from teaching Newton's laws of motion. A philosophical question is whether or not we SHOULD teach Newton's laws. Note that we still refer to those equations as Newton's "laws", though they are known to inadequately describe observed reality. In other words, Newton's laws of motion describe motions that are physically impossible. It is quite possible that Einstein's laws will also be shown to have inaccuracies. So, another philosophical question is just how close to observed reality does an equation have to be in order to be considered a law?
this discussion / debate on Moores Law is getting ridiculous like medieval monks arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. i say ENUFF. The reporter ( @ Rick ) should make an honest effort to stop this wastage of time by posting the original slides of this Colwell fellow at DARPA. He is after all a Govt. employee and we pay his salary, he owes the semiconductor community the technical details behind his proclamations. let us see for ourselves how technically sound his presentation was.
Philosophy applies to ethics and politics. Not to science and technology.
Let science and economics decide whether moore's law is dead, alive (or both).
(When I have a leak in my bathroom, I don't call an electrician, I call a plumber.)
Right now, physics tells me it's impossible to create a transistor with a channel length < an atom's width, and economics tells me it's impossible to invest more than the world's PIB in fabs.
If we want to be able to produce the next generation's smartphone or computer and not having it take more space than we have available in any limited place (a flat, a warehouse, a country, even a planet: take your pick), then at some point, we know Moore's law is going to come to an end either because the device is going to be too big to be practical, or because we don't have the money to build it)
I think one thing people are forgetting is that Moore's Law is not a law. It is not a law in the sense of the law of Gravitation for example. It is just a statement he made in an article many years ago that people latched on to. The laws of physics don't change, but Moore's Law (that is not a law in the scientific sense) can and will change.
Moore's Law is dead predictions began about 10 years ago. Sooner or later, somone will be correct. Personally I think there will be another technology to replace CMOS, but that doesn't mean Moore's Law will continue to be valid.
Well, if philosophical reality is not true, I think we all professor's including those at Harvard, Yale, MIT and other colleges and universities around the world need to stop training future engineers. Will that happen in 20 years, no. A law is dead when there is a major movement to change it. There's no movement to change Moore's Law. As a matter of fact, this is the first time I have heard of such statement. Now, I am willing to add to or enhance Moore's Law to meet current times, but to say Moore's Law is dead... please. Sometime in life you have to face reality. Moore's Law is current and we have no intention of changing it. Moore's Law helped lay down the foundation. You don't remove educational foundations out of the curriculum.
What are the engineering and design challenges in creating successful IoT devices? These devices are usually small, resource-constrained electronics designed to sense, collect, send, and/or interpret data. Some of the devices need to be smart enough to act upon data in real time, 24/7. Are the design challenges the same as with embedded systems, but with a little developer- and IT-skills added in? What do engineers need to know? Rick Merritt talks with two experts about the tools and best options for designing IoT devices in 2016. Specifically the guests will discuss sensors, security, and lessons from IoT deployments.