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.
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.
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?
- 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.
As we unveil EE Times’ 2015 Silicon 60 list, journalist & Silicon 60 researcher Peter Clarke hosts a conversation on startups in the electronics industry. Panelists Dan Armbrust (investment firm Silicon Catalyst), Andrew Kau (venture capital firm Walden International), and Stan Boland (successful serial entrepreneur, former CEO of Neul, Icera) join in the live debate.