Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel's Roadmap Includes 4nm Fab in 2022

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the that's-a-bit-out-there dept.

Intel 259

Precision submits "Intel Corp., the largest maker of chips in the world, has outlined plans to make chips using 4nm process technology in about thirteen years. According to Intel, integration capacity of chips will increase much higher compared to fabrication process."

cancel ×

259 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Logical next step: (5, Funny)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 5 years ago | (#29174909)

The next step of the plan: negative-sized chips by 2050!

Re:Logical next step: (4, Funny)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 5 years ago | (#29174953)

Either that or the "TARDIS" chip. The logic gates are bigger on the inside than on the outside in order to get around moore's law.....

Re:Logical next step: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175617)

Or in Intel's case, the RETARDIS chip.

Re:Logical next step: (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175725)

"Either that or the "TARDIS" chip. The logic gates are bigger on the inside than on the outside in order to get around moore's law....."

That would never get you around Moore's Law, but it might get you around the very existence of Moore himself ;-)

Re:Logical next step: (1, Funny)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#29174961)

They can already do this using, my special negative-sized ruler.

Re:Logical next step: (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175001)

They can already do this using, my special negative-sized ruler.

The one you use to measure your penis?

Re:Logical next step: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175767)

Have you been peering through his window again? Shame on you. Shame.

Re:Logical next step: (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175793)

"They can already do this using, my special negative-sized ruler."

"The one you use to measure your penis?"

hedwards is a GeekGirl? That's hot!

Re:Logical next step: (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175743)

The next step of the plan: negative-sized chips by 2050!

Shortly after, expect an increase in e-mails on how you can enlarge your CPU through medication.

My business plan includes world domination (4, Insightful)

captaindomon (870655) | more than 5 years ago | (#29174921)

These are long-term business forecasts for 10+ years down the line. They are thought experiments only, in my opinion. They are still valuable, and something to consider, but still very much a "projection" and not a "concrete plan with funding".

Re:My business plan includes world domination (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175925)

They are still valuable, and something to consider, but still very much a "projection" and not a "concrete plan with funding".

And you know this HOW?

Are you privilege to Intel internal budget and development cycles?

I see no reason this gets your vote for fairy-tale status. The shrinkage from 65nm to to 45nm was achieved about 18 months after the first mass produced 64nm processors hit the market.

Whether this is actually doable in practice remains to be seen.

A crystal of bulk silicon has a lattice constant of 0.543 nm, so such transistors are on the order of 100 atoms across in a 64nm chip.

Cutting that down to 2nm starts to run perilously close to single atom switches, and the risk of small structures falling thru/into the substrate lattice. A different substrate is the likely choice here.

But still, the roadmap is probably close, within an uncertainty of plus or minus 10 years.

Must not be using silicon then... (1)

m0biusAce (899230) | more than 5 years ago | (#29174945)

Wait, how is 4nm possible? Isn't this below the atomic radius of silicon?

Re:Must not be using silicon then... (3, Informative)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 5 years ago | (#29174985)

They're looking at moving away from using silicon as a substrate. I can't remember if artificial diamond or something else is the proposed replacement.

Re:Must not be using silicon then... (5, Funny)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175471)

You are correct, they plan to transition from silicon to unobtainium.

Re:Must not be using silicon then... (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175773)

You are correct, they plan to transition from silicon to unobtainium.

Which they will get from Pandora?

(cross threads with he Avatar movie article)

Re:Must not be using silicon then... (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175951)

You are correct, they plan to transition from silicon to unobtainium.

No, probably Gallium arsenide (GaAs).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallium_arsenide [wikipedia.org]

It's not the radius that matters!!! (5, Informative)

feranick (858651) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175619)

The atomic radius is not the proper distance to consider. If you do so, you assume that atoms can touch each other, which is very far from the truth. The closest distance "allowed" is the first nearest-neighbor (NN), which is related to the crystal lattice constant (for Si: 0.543 nm), and the crystal structure (Si has a diamond structure). For Si that NN distance is 0.235 nm. This is all very much academic tough. Even if you could make a circuit that small, you would then have to wonder, left alone quantum-size effects, leakage, behavior under oxidation, etc.

Re:It's not the radius that matters!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175825)

...left alone quantum-size effects, leakage, behavior under oxidation, etc.

Aren't those side effects for Cylias?

Re:It's not the radius that matters!!! (1)

plague911 (1292006) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175835)

You are assuming that A) They are going to continue to use Silicon B) They are going to continue to use it in the diamond structure for Silicon http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=8&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.seas.harvard.edu%2Fekaxiras%2Fpubs%2FPapers%2F31.pdf&ei=ktmSSq73L8KBtgf_kNjOBA&usg=AFQjCNHGxhozLCbzzjkIuXVzCiNV_UZX9g [google.com] also they already take into consideration "left alone quantum-size effects, leakage, behavior under oxidation, etc."

Re:Must not be using silicon then... (5, Informative)

uchihalush (898615) | more than 5 years ago | (#29174987)

Silicon's radius is 110 picometers which translates to .11 nanometers.

Re:Must not be using silicon then... (2, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175181)

or 2.44e-10 cubits [Egyptian]

Re:Must not be using silicon then... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175449)

Re:Must not be using silicon then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175537)

Hey, my 'units' says 2.41e-10. This bothers me. 3e-13 cubits is nothing to sneeze at!

Re:Must not be using silicon then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175719)

Dr. Kunka is that you???

Re:Must not be using silicon then... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175243)

Silicon's radius is 110 picometers which translates to .11 nanometers.

So moving a decimal point is translation these days? Shit, can you translate French to Spanish by doing it?

Re:Must not be using silicon then... (1)

Kugala (1083127) | more than 5 years ago | (#29174991)

It's about .1nm, so 40 atoms across.

atomic radius of silicon (1, Informative)

Lexible (1038928) | more than 5 years ago | (#29174997)

the atomic radius of silicon is about 110pm, or about 0.11nm, or a little less than 1/36th of 4nm.

Re:Must not be using silicon then... (0)

drjoeward (1366975) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175003)

no, the diameter of a silicon atom is 0.22 nm still that makes it only about 18 atoms wide and 4nm is in the X-ray portion of the spectrum.

Re:Must not be using silicon then... (1)

mach1980 (1114097) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175015)

Si has a atomic radi of 1,17 Angstrom, so thats 1,17e-10 meters or 0,17 nm.

You got to give it to the metric system ;)

Re:Must not be using silicon then... (2, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175057)

You got to give it to the Eruos for using "," instead of "." for a decimal point.

Re:Must not be using silicon then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175333)

Except for the British, who have a separate character for the decimal separator - it's like a period, but it's vertically centred. Avoids ambiguity and confusion, but doesn't work in Slashdot :(

Re:Must not be using silicon then... (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175403)

And seems to have largely gone out of fasion. Mostly we brits use the period these days like the americans do.

Decimal commas are annoying and confusing. Particularlly when some idiot manufacturer neglects to change them when making the english version of their documention.

Re:Must not be using silicon then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175769)

If decimal commas are annoying and confusing, then I'd say that's the least of your problems. I say this having worked on projects where both styles were freely mixed.

Re:Must not be using silicon then... (1)

imamac (1083405) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175023)

The atomic radius of silicon is 117.6 pm whoich is about 1/10th of a nm.

Re:Must not be using silicon then... (1)

Rival (14861) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175037)

Not quite. The atomic radius for silicon is 111 pm [wikipedia.org] , so 4 nm is a little over 36 silicon atoms wide.

Re:Must not be using silicon then... (-1, Redundant)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175049)

The atomic radius of silicon is 111 pm. That's 0.111 nm, so they've got a ways to go there.

Re:Must not be using silicon then... (1)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175081)

The atomic radius of Si is 111pm, or ~0.1 nm.

It's still a bit hard to believe that they can create logic gates 18 times the diameter of a silicon atom—and only 7.5 times the atomic lattice spacing in silicon crystal. Time will tell.

Re:Must not be using silicon then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175211)

Silicon has an atomic radius of 5nm, so you are absolutely right. They accomplished it by praying to the great flying spaghetti monster. Now the FSM holds the atoms in place with his divine noodley appendage.

Re:Must not be using silicon then... (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175423)

It's still a bit hard to believe that they can create logic gates 18 times the diameter of a silicon atom
IIRC process sizes are the size of the smallest feature (typically the mosfet gate length), not the size of a complete gate.

Re:Must not be using silicon then... (2, Informative)

Plekto (1018050) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175665)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_nanometer [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_nanometer [wikipedia.org]

If you read the two articles, it's clear that there are significant issues with gate sizes, materials, and quantum tunneling that make even 11nm basically a pipe-dream. It's the same reason we don't see 10ghz processors - they've hit limits that current science can't easily get past.

Re:Must not be using silicon then... (1)

rhsanborn (773855) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175373)

Note, just the other day, it was a major story that IBM and Caltech had found a way to arrange DNA as a sort of scaffolding for arranging components. From an article on just this subject:

The resulting nanostructures might be used as scaffolds or as miniature circuit boards for precisely assembling components like carbon nanotubes and nanowires. Such circuits would be much smaller than those possible using conventional techniques to fabricate semiconductors. Indeed, the resolution of the process is roughly 10x higher than those currently used to make computer chips because the spacing between the components can be as small as just 6 nm, explains Rothemund.

Source: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/40171 [physicsworld.com]

Re:Must not be using silicon then... (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175503)

I'd like to see more replies containing the atomic radius of silicon ... I think with a little effort we can break some sort of /. record here.

Re:Must not be using silicon then... (1)

SilverEyes (822768) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175685)

I'd like to see more replies containing the atomic radius of silicon ... I think with a little effort we can break some sort of /. record here.

As long as we measure the length of the thread in atomic radii of silicon.

How do I add tags to posts now? (-1, Offtopic)

hattig (47930) | more than 5 years ago | (#29174983)

It seems I can't add my own tags to posts any more. Instead I get a grey bar with an almost invisible + and - in it, and no way to do anything. Not that I'm currently allowed to post a reply, because of the anal anti-spam system that doesn't take someone's on-going karma into account (i.e., good posters should be allowed to post more, none of this 10 minute time-out thing).

And on-topic, woo, progress marches on. Anyone care to work out how many Nehalem cores you could fit onto a 200mm^2 chip at 4nm?

Re:How do I add tags to posts now? (1)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175041)

It seems I can't add my own tags to posts any more. Instead I get a grey bar with an almost invisible + and - in it, and no way to do anything. Not that I'm currently allowed to post a reply, because of the anal anti-spam system that doesn't take someone's on-going karma into account (i.e., good posters should be allowed to post more, none of this 10 minute time-out thing).

I have a similar problem. The tagging interface works perfectly for me in every way ... except that not a single tag I have ever set has ever once shown up on the main page. Apparently my tags are going straight to /dev/null after being accepted by a perfectly functional interface. Care to trade?

Re:How do I add tags to posts now? (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175315)

I used to have that problem, now I don't even get the option of being disappointed as the tag disappears into tag-limbo. I think tagging is for personal use, but that common tags get elevated to everyone-sees them. But that doesn't explain why personal tags don't show up anymore.

I don't know, I literally cannot think like the Slashdot coders, as everything they do seems contrary to common sense.

Re:How do I add tags to posts now? (1)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175613)

I don't know, I literally cannot think like the Slashdot coders, as everything they do seems contrary to common sense.

They program in perl. They are ABOVE common sense.

Re:How do I add tags to posts now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175723)

I'm not sure about the common tags thing. For example, First-European-Provider-To-Break-Net-Neutrality [slashdot.org] is tagged with 'okwellusehttpthen', which I can't believe is that common.

Re:How do I add tags to posts now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175047)

You're hardly a "good poster". Your baseline post score is 1, for God's sake. Get back to me when you actually have some positive karma to deal with, troll-boy.

Re:How do I add tags to posts now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175145)

Compared to what, 0?

Re:How do I add tags to posts now? (1)

A Friendly Troll (1017492) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175261)

I get the same thing and I'm even unable to meta-moderate because of the same issue.

Slashdot, getting more broken every day.

The people that created this must not be engineers (3, Insightful)

olsmeister (1488789) | more than 5 years ago | (#29174989)

This is obviously pie-in-the-sky speak from the marketing dweebs, who don't understand the physical limitations that come with a die shrink.

Re:The people that created this must not be engine (3, Informative)

matastas (547484) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175213)

Except for the fact that a lot of the 'marketing dweebs' at tech companies are engineers.

Just sayin'. Your product management/marketing folks at these firms are often very plugged in to the tech side of things (I should know, being one of them).

Re:The people that created this must not be engine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175591)

then speak what you know, son!

Re:The people that created this must not be engine (2, Interesting)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175863)

Or so you think! ^^

After all there's a reason you're not actually working in enginerring, when you're such a great engineer...

Re:The people that created this must not be engine (4, Informative)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175371)

Forget about the limitations of die shrink, what about the limitations of quantum mechanics? I was under the impression that 4 nm is getting awefully close to the point where quantum tunneling makes tansistors unworkable. As in, when you detect a signal, you can't tell if it's there because it should be or because an electron just jumped the gap.

Re:The people that created this must not be engine (1)

SilverEyes (822768) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175721)

...you can't tell if it's there because it should be or because an electron just jumped the gap.

More of this. We should make tunneling the nerd version of this [urbandictionary.com] or this [wikipedia.org]

Re:The people that created this must not be engine (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175431)

They likely have more knowledge surrounding technology for a decade plus roadmap than you do.

Re:The people that created this must not be engine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175585)

Yeah, intel is a bag of shit. I mean, its not as though they're making billions upon billions of moneys - they hardly know what they're talking about. If I wanted to know what was possible in 2022, I'd come to /. to listen to some pathetic failure of a life who actually has the arrogance to believe he knows more than intel when it comes to fabrication

Re:The people that created this must not be engine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175595)

You humans. When're you gonna learn that size doesn't matter? Just 'cause something's important, doesn't mean it's not very, very small.

-- Frank the Pug

Re:The people that created this must not be engine (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175707)

As a 'marketing dweeb' at a big chip company I can tell you that most of us (me included) are former engineers who moved to marketing because we could make significantly more money there, have a nicer office, and generally a better working environment.

We set our own deadlines. If a product fails we decide why (guess what...it is never because it wasn't marketed well). We set our own hours. We travel when we want, where we want. Our co-workers are better dressed and better mannered and have much better hygiene. I can sit in meetings and daydream all day if I want, because my boss doesn't measure my output by piece work standards.

Of course not just any engineer can make the jump. You have to have social skills. Be good looking. Speak well. Not be shy. Have a sense of fashion. Be funny among normal people, not just at Gen-con.

I can see why Slashdotters are envious of marketing people.

Looking forward to wireless chip interconnections (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175017)

Let's do away with the hundreds of pins or pads and have chips communicate through ultra-wideband low-power wireless links (with waveguides if necessary). That should drive costs for board, chips and tools down significantly and quite possibly also enable amateurs to once again build hardware with modern chips.

Re:Looking forward to wireless chip interconnectio (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175061)

How much data can you transmit in a very localised (~10cm) environment wirelessly?

How about via a high-quality optical cable? Even if the length of that cable was restricted for optimal performance, i.e., connecting a CPU to another piece of logic?

Re:Looking forward to wireless chip interconnectio (-1, Offtopic)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175099)

Let's not beat around the bush people.
We all know where this is going.

Sharks. With friggin' laser beams attached to their friggin' heads.

Re:Looking forward to wireless chip interconnectio (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175331)

Looking at current processors, never mind the future stuff, we have(in addition to power, which will definitely need pins, though only a few really chunky ones) a HyperTransport or QuickPath connection, both good for ~25gigabytes/s, plus however much bandwidth is needed to/from the system RAM.

I'm not an RF expert; but I'm going to hazard the guess that pushing 30+gigabytes a second over the air, even across short distances, is not something you do to make your life easy.

Must we dumb it down? (3, Funny)

stormguard2099 (1177733) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175085)

"Intel Corp., the largest maker of chips in the world,

Is it really neccesary to explain who intel is on /.? I think even my parents know that intel makes chips, they put out enough commercials... Are even our taco overlords not really reading TFS before hitting that submit button?

Re:Must we dumb it down? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175733)

Plus, Frito-Lay.

And what are they planning to use as a mask (1, Flamebait)

rimcrazy (146022) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175103)

... besides wishful thinking?

Oh, and given at those dimensions quantum noise (e^KT/q) will be greater in signal strength than a 1 or 0 level I am interested to see just how this works.

I'd love to see it but for the moment it's just numbers on a slide. About a gazzilion dollars in research are needed to get to those dimensions.

Re:And what are they planning to use as a mask (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175207)

About a gazzilion dollars in research are needed to get to those dimensions.

A gazzilion dollars comes to about $7.50 in 2007 dollars.

Re:And what are they planning to use as a mask (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175247)

Well, all you need to do is reduce the value of K...

Re:And what are they planning to use as a mask (2, Funny)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175777)

I'd love to see it but for the moment it's just numbers on a slide. About a gazzilion dollars in research are needed to get to those dimensions.

I don't pretend to be able to meaningfully comment on how likely they are to make it, but that is a fair description of Intel's business model over the last 30 years.

My Roadmap (5, Funny)

hippo_of_knowledge (445662) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175109)

It just happens that my personal roadmap for 2022 includes a flying pony that craps gold. I'm cautiously optimistic.

Re:My Roadmap (5, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175313)

Give it up. The liability from lawsuits by people who sue after getting hit in the head by heavy gold flying pony crap will bankrupt you, just like it did the owners of the goose that laid golden eggs...

Re:My Roadmap (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175989)

The liability from lawsuits by people who sue after getting hit in the head by heavy gold flying pony crap will bankrupt you

Just pass that liability on to someone else. For instance, you could put it in their employment contract that any damages from law suits will be paid by garnishing the pooper scoopers' wages.

Re:My Roadmap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175435)

But they don't piss rainbows? Be more optimistic. Shoot for the stars, man.

Re:My Roadmap (1)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175891)

It will be the 20s. You better be wearing a zoot suit when you ride that pony.

Re:My Roadmap (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175931)

Well, that is physically feasible. I just have a feeling that you you didn't mean a pony in a ultralight plane, that got his ass stuffed with balls of gold...
Although you could certainly get someone to sell you that. ;)

12 years seems ambitious (2, Insightful)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175121)

Even accounting for the successful introduction of new materials for transistors, 12 years to get to 4nm seems a tad ambitious. Also, you have to wonder whether or not they're approaching the top of the S curve.

Re:12 years seems ambitious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175573)

Or the bottom of the BS curve.

String theory (2, Funny)

basicasic (1185047) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175123)

It obvious that by then scientists will have found some of that string they've been theorising about for years and will be using that for interconnects.

Re:String theory (2, Funny)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175275)

And I guess wireless networks will be using subspace channels? 802.11s?

Re:String theory (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175927)

Already taken: IEEE 802.11s [wikipedia.org] .

IEEE 802.11s defines a mesh-networking protocol which "extends the IEEE 802.11 MAC standard by defining an architecture and protocol that support both broadcast/multicast and unicast delivery using 'radio-aware metrics over self-configuring multi-hop topologies.'"

apparently theres (0)

nimbius (983462) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175161)

a good deal of hope in this projection that someone will have broken timespace and licensed the procedure, silicon will stop being so uncooperative at the 4nm scale, or the higgs boson is getting discovered at the end of the month this year. this resounds with earlier city planning predictions around the start of the 20th century that people would fly through tubes both subterranean and through the air to their destinations. turns out that wont work.

Bill gates, a guy who arguably got rich by being ruthless and in the right place at the right time, is famous for his pot-shot predictions of the future as news media routinely mistakes him as a mystic sage, and computers in turn as a form of arcane magic. a better tile for this article would be "intel exec cracks skull on platinum yacht crapper during champagne island-wager, sees magic future in pool of head-blood."

a question id ask, before said exec bleeds out, is whether he thinks AMD is going to roll over and die around 2010, thereby paving the way for delusions of globe-dominating profit to be realized...and maybe while im at it id inquire if he knows how the word "nano" works outside of the ipod realm.

Oh Intel. Such optimists... (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175165)

By 2022, the only integrated circuits you'll have will be the ones you carve yourself, with your bare teeth, out of the bones of your children(during those rare times that you aren't fighting off hordes of monstrous rat-men or scavenging for survival in a grim Malthusian dystopia).

Re:Oh Intel. Such optimists... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175305)

Dnap crozak mucky mucky hoodwiggle. Aptach TRS-80 4,whacka-mole wuppa puppa. Bezdig 6502 Assembler!

Re:Oh Intel. Such optimists... (2, Insightful)

treeves (963993) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175883)

Given the choice between this getting modded funny and getting modded insightful, I guess I'll be thankful it was modded funny.

Re:Oh Intel. Such optimists... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175919)

i have to wait until 2022?! man, but i want to fight off some monstrous rat-men in a grim dystopia *now*!

Who can predict that far out? (3, Insightful)

ishmalius (153450) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175365)

I would suspect that unforeseen developments, such as big advances in 3d circuit design, would alter this schedule a lot. This is simply daydreaming.

Re:Who can predict that far out? (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175519)

3D chip layouts are part of this roadmap. This kind of roadmap isn't really intended to say what their process will be, however. It's intended to give numbers to their core design teams about how many transistors they will be able to play with, what the latencies will be, and so on. These teams will then start working on designs on the assumption that the predictions are correct, then tweak them a bit if they were wrong. If they go badly wrong, you get something like the Pentium 4.

Integration capacity? "increase much higher"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175401)

According to Intel, integration capacity of chips will increase much higher compared to fabrication process."

Um, what? They have it going as 1/(process size)^2, which makes perfect sense for same-sized chips. When you halve your process size, each transistor is half as big on a side, or a quarter of the area. So it seems perfectly reasonable to have four times as many. Did whoever wrote this actually stop to think?

Power vs Speed (3, Interesting)

Efreet (246368) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175657)

It seems to me that rather than the identity and timeframe for the different technology nodes (which anyone who knows Moore's law could have given in advance) the interesting thing from that slide is what it says about delay scaling and energy scaling. Whenever you shrink your process you have a certain amount of gain that can go into either making the chip faster or making the chip more power efficient. For a long time back in the day people wanted to stay at 5 volts to preserve compatibility, so everyone just kept putting it into going faster. Nowadays chipmakers try to go for a more balanced strategy.

But here, on this chart, Intel is saying that they're going to a delay scaling of "~1", staying at pretty much the same speed. And they're looking to increase their energy scaling from "~.5" to ">.5". So it looks like we really have topped out in terms of GHz.

Re:Power vs Speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175875)

It's not only about the speed of the processor, but what it does in that timeframe.
Car analogy: it's not the revvs of the engine that counts, it's the revs (torque) translated via the gearbox to speed (hp).

How accurate are Intel roadmaps? (1)

V50 (248015) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175675)

I don't really pay too much attention to the chip business, so I'm wondering how well, historically, Intel has followed their roadmaps? Are they like an actual roadmap of a, uh, road, that you can follow, or more like a "Roadmap to Peace" that's made because it looks good and people expect you to, even though everyone knows it's not going to work out?

Anyone got a roadmap from 1996 or so, so one can see how well it was followed?

How about 1994, 1997 and 2000/2001? (4, Interesting)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175821)

Here's [aeiveos.com] a set of roadmaps generated at three-year intervals. Note that, with the exception of RAM density, each of the charted criteria outran the roadmaps' predictions.

These roadmaps are generated by a consortium of companies. They're routinely betting the future of their entire industry on these roadmaps. They're actually pretty darned conservative.

Think Biology (1)

juggledean (792527) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175853)


It's about the size of the channels that gate the flow of electricity across nerve membranes.

Future? (1)

pengipengi (1352837) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175877)

Assuming that earth is all carbon (and my calculations are correct), earth is built of approximatly 3.6*10^31 atoms.

According to that table (if extended), there would be a processor with more transansistors on a single chip than atoms in earth in 2152.

Company makes new versions, news at 11. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29175887)

Blah blah blah. Why is this news? Remember roadmaps from 2002? Do we even care about those now? We won't about this one in the future.

Re:Company makes new versions, news at 11. (1)

NervousNerd (1190935) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175983)

Yeah. I'm still waiting for that 10GHz Pentium 4 you guys were talking about.

of course they did (1)

dirtyhippie (259852) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175897)

of course intel showed "plans" for this. they have investors who don't understand the limits of miniaturization to snow.

And on a personal note... (2, Funny)

pseudorand (603231) | more than 5 years ago | (#29175965)

That's great. Planning for the future must truly be what separates man from beast. I do the same thing. Here's my personal roadmap:

2010) - Get in shape, including 6-pack, benchpressing twice my weight and being able to do a Triathlon in Olympic-qualifying time.
2011) - Win Powerball. Quit job
2012) - Use lottery winnings to build self-sufficient compound to survive Mayan apocalypse.
2013) - Now that I'm the only one in the world with means of survival, all the girls will like me. Procreate wildly to start new human race.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?