A Texas A&M researcher is arguing that Moore's Law will inevitably end within the next 6 years. Laszlo Kish notes that thermal noise is becoming an increasing problem for transistors, and that within the next 6 years this intractable problem will limit transistor density. Because of thermal noise, the supply voltage of transistors cannot be reduced below a certain limit. Below about 40 nanometers, thermal noise will cause random “bit flips” which will ruin the reliability of transistors. Kish claims that the only way around this problem is to limit transistor integration density. If Mr. Kish's comments are correct, then CMOS scaling should end at the 45 nanometer node, in about 2009. Of course, one way to get around this problem would be to cryogenically cool the chips, which would reduce or even eliminate the thermal noise problem. Currently, it appears likely that if we ever use microprocessors with 10 nanometer features, such chips will be immersed in a bath of liquid nitrogen.
Rob's Note: Being the stubborn guy that I am, I'm still holding out for breakthroughs to carry us down to 10 nanometers or less. We'll know in 6 years … or 10 years, I suppose.
USER COMMENTS 31 comment(s)
|KMOS (1:50pm EST Fri Dec 20 2002)
I am glad we can't see in the future, life would become extremely boring… – by Bassie.
|Hard to say… (2:28pm EST Fri Dec 20 2002)
I've not heard the thermal noise argument for some time – but perhaps it is a twist on the dopant-quantitization issue that is looming. In a nutshell, silicon needs either to be P (positive) or N doped in order for PN junctions to do what they do (e.g. rectify in diodes, amplify in FETs and BPTs).
The number of atoms that constitute the 'dopant' is pretty tiny. 1:1,000 is pretty typical. Now consider… if atomic spacing is on the order of 0.7 to 2.0 angstroms (tenths of a nanometer), then at say 1.5Ĺ interatomic spacing, there are some 200,000,000 atoms in a FET channel that is 130×130×30 nm. (today's measures) There are then about 200,000 dopant atoms, so random variations in dopant density probably account for some 0.2% or so in the number.
But at 10 nm (10×10×5 nm channel) you have only 150,000 atoms in the channel, and only about 150 of them are dopants! Hmmm… sounds like a big deal to me: ±20, and voila: maybe the trannie will work, maybe it'll be a dud. Now, multiply those odds by the few billion trannies expected to be on the mass-scale devices of 2010.
Wow. Doesn't sound promising. I've managed to scare myself even more than I intended.
And no, the # of dopant atoms cannot be upped past 1:100 because the semiconductor looses its semiconducting properties.
It may – in the end – come down to completely abandoning Silicon and germanium and go directly to quantum tunneling across peroskovite insulators in strong magnetic fields. The equivalent of “transistors” have been demonstrated, and there are no dopants. Thermal effects are stronger, but dissipation is 3 orders of magnitude lower. Could answer the “surface-of-the-sun” heat problem that also is looming.
– by GoatGuy
|Biology (2:49pm EST Fri Dec 20 2002)
Biological compounds exist that are 10 nanometers and they function at room temperature. It can happen but they don't line up on a wafer too easily. – by DS
|halfhardware (2:56pm EST Fri Dec 20 2002)
prob. polymering isn't such a bad solution – by Bassie.
|try using… (3:32pm EST Fri Dec 20 2002)
peanut butter in between the waffers this help too with all ntwking issues too. – by jkgoose
|Right on GoatGuy. (3:44pm EST Fri Dec 20 2002)
If moores law is to continue, we will have to abandon silicon. Many companies are working on this. HT & superscalar tech work will also continue. Heat & noise are major issues. – by tech
|re: Biology (5:02pm EST Fri Dec 20 2002)
Yes they do work, but that is an analog computation, not a digital one.
A lot more flexible, just harder to setup. – by old sampler
|good riddance (6:57pm EST Fri Dec 20 2002)
Why are we following some old dude. I'm trying to make this funny, but it isn't really.
Things like Moore's law are keeping us back. Intel is really to blaim. AMD was happy keeping their MHZ down and just making chips that do more per clock.
Intel is also on the right track with Itanium now at least. Itanium isn't going to run at 3mhz for several years.
In a way it can still keep going by having multiple dies at smaller manufactoring proccess. Maybe stacked on to of each other, but not connected. Meaning in the same 2-d space, not 3-d you could double your transitor counts.
Each die combined could be considered as the speed and hence the overall speed could still rise exponentially.
It's all how you look at it I guess. It is not like Moore's law is a physical law, it is something to keep our brains busy.
One thing is for sure, we can't predict the future. In 6 months some reasearch team could come out with a radical transitor that makes all of these predictions useless. Maybe Goatguy will :) – by et
|Re: GoatGuy (7:13pm EST Fri Dec 20 2002)
What you are referring to is transistor mismatch. Altough a severe problem, this is not the mentioned thermal noise. Thermal, time varying noise is the noise that is generated over all resistors. For CMOS processes, it comes down to track down this resistive effect as CMOS logic is based on charging capacitances. I do not know how the guy came to that claim, but it is at least a very bold one. It requires the combined and deep knowledge of physics, analog design and digital design to be able to make conclusions like he did. – by jd
|its a bunch of crap anyways (9:28pm EST Fri Dec 20 2002)
ever notice how moore's laws only apply to Intel and not AMD or anyone else?
mabey some rules apply to AMD, but not all, For example, AMD was the first to come out with a 1ghz CPU, yet 18 months later AMD did not release 2ghz CPU. only 18 months after Intel's 1ghz chip did intel release a 2ghz chip.
So, the 18 month rule isn't really a rule, its just a intel policy to double their clock speed every 18 months. – by Synonymous
|So…. (12:36am EST Sat Dec 21 2002)
then it isn't Moore's Law, but rather Moore's Theory? – by buster
|I know this much (1:10am EST Sat Dec 21 2002)
Moore's Law is anything but a law. – by The Iceman
|but… (1:26am EST Sat Dec 21 2002)
isn't the law every 18 to 24 months, not just 18 months – by dash
|I wonder (10:07am EST Sat Dec 21 2002)
what Roger Moore has to say about this. 007 will take care of all your problems. – by bones
|Moore's Law has nothing to do with speed (10:52am EST Sat Dec 21 2002)
Moore's law is: “Transistor density on a substrate doubles every 18 months.”
Doubling the number of transistors does not say anything about speed, let alone the amount of work done.
Intel has managed to get everyone to believe that clock speed is the only attribute of a CPU that matters. Those of us that know better don't buy it.
I think it would be interesting to see a comparison of chips thus: Thermal output versus computational output, and also power consumption versus computational output. I think we would see a very different picture emerge of what we consider “efficient”.
Remeber the 80286? It was faster, clock-for-clock, than the 80386. By making the 80386 capable of some more complex stuff, it wound up being SLOWER in IPC than the 80286.
I also think it would be interesting to see what a Z80 could do if it could be built to run at 1 GHz. I know, 64 KB max memory, but it would still be interesting. – by Brian Corbino
|Hmmmm (2:51pm EST Sat Dec 21 2002)
Dose this mean im not geting my Petaflop laptop by 2015? – by Bob
|RE: Goat Guy (3:52pm EST Sat Dec 21 2002)
Quick question. What is the best way to paint my cermaic bathroom tiles? – by Bob Vila
|Bob (4:22pm EST Sat Dec 21 2002)
Before you stick them to the walls? – by Repoman
|Translation… (7:12pm EST Sat Dec 21 2002)
Moore's “law” is really Moore's “observation.”
We are moving forward with technology at a fast pace. If someone said vacuum tubes can only get so small… and eventually we're doomed because vacuum tubes will limit us… and therefore Moore's Observation is wrong… I'd simply point out that the technological advances at not married to a specific technology.
If we one door is closed, plenty of other doors we have not even considered trying are probably open. A few that we've discussed include: Quantum computers, DNA chips, etc.
Eventually we will migrate onto the next great and fantastic platform. And that means that all of you smarties will have to learn a new lingo and then press on!
|actually…. (11:16pm EST Sat Dec 21 2002)
Moore's Law is:
The number of transistors on chips would double every 12 to 24 months.
found it on the intel site.
– by buster
|Well look what they said about CD speeds not going above 4x (11:55am EST Sun Dec 22 2002)
There were arguments that CD speed couldn't go above 4x because the plastic would warp. The solution? Harder plastic.
I am sure we will find a way around this problem. – by nosebreaker dot com
|Problem? (2:57pm EST Sun Dec 22 2002)
I thought the heat problem could be solved by introducing nano-tubes to channel the heat away. – by nano-nano
|I'm not interested in Moores Law (8:11pm EST Sun Dec 22 2002)
… but i hope Murphys Law will end in 6 years.. gg – by lol
|Murphy Rules….! (8:35pm EST Sun Dec 22 2002)
Murphy hangs around behind your computer and tangles all the wires while you sleep.
– by Murphy's Brother
|Goat (8:49pm EST Sun Dec 22 2002)
Your math needs work bud. You're off by an order of mag.
Also, I know you're a teacher, so, I was wondering what Jr. High or High School you worked at?
– by M.E.
|M.E. is right… (8:54pm EST Sun Dec 22 2002)
…goat. Your math is incorrect.
And your “theories” regarding semiconductor physics are out dated. Might I suggest a recent publication of my own: Semiconductor Devices: Physics and Technology, 2nd Ed. I would advise that you read it before making such posts in the future. – by S.M. Sze
|Ouch (8:31pm EST Mon Dec 23 2002)
That must sting. – by Jason Hughes
|Moore's law and employment – my posting in google newsgroup (3:09am EST Thu Jan 02 2003)
I want to figure out two scenario :
Optimistic one ( Ray Kurzweil like ) :
Realistic one ( may be pessimistic ) :
Any comments ??? – by Rustam
|QUANTUM COMPUTING (7:14am EST Tue Feb 11 2003)
gchq of great britain already as a quantum computer – so the debate on silicon density is now somewhat academic.
– by reece
|The Goat Guy Has It! (10:01pm EST Wed Feb 04 2004)
I think we will eventually abandon silicon-based chips because of their declining semiconducting properties as they shrink. The quantum computer is an exciting prospect, as it would utilize the most fundamental parts of matter that we know of.
Another possibility is to create an on/off switch through the use of self-assembling monolayers. These are simple carbon chains that arrange themselves on metal substrate. Some of these SAMs have unique chemical structures that change when voltage is passes through them. All in all, this would create a transistor 1/10th the size of the predicted limit from Moore's Law (40nm -> 5nm).
The difficulty comes in when one tries to decipher whether one, let alone, several million, of these transistors are “on” or “off” in a timely manner. – by Xen
|thanks (12:19pm EST Sat Jan 07 2006)
This is an excellent site thanks for the information! – by andy