“More than Moore”: a glimpse at the future of computing

[erek]

Interesting

“This remarkable doubling has occurred since Moore’s law was first postulated in 1965 and has brought us mobile phones with vastly more computing power than was available on the entire planet six decades ago.

However, the atomic nature of matter and the laws of physics mean that transistors cannot keep shrinking forever; and researchers are currently looking for new ways of boosting computing power, without having to pack evermore silicon devices onto chips.

To explore what lies beyond the era of Moore’s law, IOP Publishing is presenting a webinar called “More than Moore”, which will look at some of the technologies that could play roles in the computers of the future.”

Source: https://physicsworld.com/a/more-than-moore-a-glimpse-at-the-future-of-computing/

 

[Axman]

Moore's law is that the cost per transistor halves every two years, it has nothing to do with the process...

 

[erek]

Moore's law is that the cost per transistor halves every two years, it has nothing to do with the process...

Hmm

 

[1337Goat]

However, the atomic nature of matter and the laws of physics mean that transistors cannot keep shrinking forever; and researchers are currently looking for new ways of boosting computing power, without having to pack evermore silicon devices onto chips.

This is not necessarily true. It could be true that a specific element such as silicon has a finite point at which you begin to identify its subatomic particles. But that does not preclude the actual real-world usage of sub-atomic particles into a form able to process and compute data. The limit is our technological ability, but I am already casually sitting here typing this on a computer, which is really only 60 or so years old since the invention of the integrated circuit out of a total of several billion years since the the last big bang, which may not have even been the first big bang. In the end, this means that I am fairly confident that if we continue to develop technology, then it's very reasonable to expect that this sort of capability could become possible in even just 100 years, and if not that, then perhaps 200 years. But that is still a very small, and finite distance of time.

In the end, the old adage is true: As time goes by, technology becomes moore and moore complex.
I do not think that size is a limit, considering the fact that we continue to invent things and improve upon them. We just need to build a machine capable of manipulating subatomic particles at the level at which it takes to build a Turing complete computer.

 

[FrgMstr]

Carbon nanotubes. EUV lithography is coming to a close.

 

[Axman]

Carbon nanotubes. EUV lithography is coming to a close.

What happened to synthetic rubies and diamonds? That was the promised land a few years ago, but I haven't seen anything about that anytime recently.

 

[FrgMstr]

What happened to synthetic rubies and diamonds? That was the promised land a few years ago, but I haven't seen anything about that anytime recently.

Well, there is a reason for that. What you mention, while laid out in research papers have merit..in theory...production is another adjunct. I personally think that carbon nanotubes are going to be our way forward in semiconductors. I may be wrong. Finfets (3D transistors) changed the world, however, as we move to sub 3 nanometer lithography, even EUV will be useless. The entire manufacturing and design process has to change. We are going to be "stuck" for quite a while at sub-2nm lithography as moving past that with our current production technology is simply not efficient at the cost per wafer. Yield. Gets pretty dicey below 2nm. 3nm is a shitshow on waste if you look a the big picture currently. Consumer is paying 2X for TSMC due to poor yields.

 

[FrgMstr]

The real question that has not been answered is why has Intel been trying to buy Tower Semiconductor for $5.4 billion (USD) for the last year?

Gelsinger signed on to the CHIPS Act. Got a couple billion, but in the scope of EUV tech is nothing.

The Tower acquisition has been blocked by the CCP.

Gelsinger flew to China and met with the CCP (mentioned in Intel's earnings call) that is blocking the Tower deal. Why is the acquisition necessary? This is a huge question.

Is he going to side with the CCP to continue to sell to that market, or is he going to forego the CHIPs ACT dollars?

I would suggest, I do not know, that he could not do both...if our government is comfortable with that, and I do not see that as a good thing or actually possible policy-wise.

So look at this press release from Intel on Feb 15th, 2022.

So, if you take every one of those talking points, on the surface it is looking at Tower's revenue to fund its CAPEX for its foundry expansion in the USA.

However, what I am told is that IFS currently, Intel Foundry Services, is saddled with a lackluster employee embodiment that cannot move it forward. 10nm++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Intel is looking to bring Tower on as a saving grace to run it foundries. I am told that Tower resources are a crucial part of IFS moving forward successfully because the talent internally is not sufficient.

So does Intel bow to the CCP, or does it flounder? The real question here is, does Intel bow to the CCP, and get the Tower deal, or forego the CCP's sign-off, which can kill the deal?

The answer seems fairly obvious to myself. If Intel bows to the CCP to get the deal done, that means that Gelsinger has no confidence in getting IFS profitable without Tower, and all that IP to build new sub-2nm will be shared/stolen across the globe.

If you want a totally different opinion on this, from someone that thinks Intel is at a great state to be a 3rd player in the ecosystem, listen to Daniel Nenni. A very smart guy, but I do not know if I agree with him. Video at the mark:

 

[erek]

AMD's Dr. Lisa Su Thinks That Moore's Law is Still Relevant - Innovation Will Keep Legacy Going​

by T0@st Today, 12:08 Discuss (6 Comments)
Barron's Magazine has been on a technology industry kick this week and published their interview with AMD CEO Dr. Lisa Su on May 3. The interviewer asks Su about her views on Moore's Law and it becomes apparent that she remains a believer of Gordon Moore's (more than half-century old) prediction - Moore, an Intel co-founder passed away in late March. Su explains that her company's engineers will need to innovate in order to carry on with that legacy: "I would certainly say I don't think Moore's Law is dead. I think Moore's Law has slowed down. We have to do different things to continue to get that performance and that energy efficiency. We've done chiplets - that's been one big step. We've now done 3-D packaging. We think there are a number of other innovations, as well." Expertise in other areas is also key in hitting technological goals: "Software and algorithms are also quite important. I think you need all of these pieces for us to continue this performance trajectory that we've all been on."

 

[noko]

The real question that has not been answered is why has Intel been trying to buy Tower Semiconductor for $5.4 billion (USD) for the last year?

Gelsinger signed on to the CHIPS Act. Got a couple billion, but in the scope of EUV tech is nothing.

The Tower acquisition has been blocked by the CCP.

Gelsinger flew to China and met with the CCP (mentioned in Intel's earnings call) that is blocking the Tower deal. Why is the acquisition necessary? This is a huge question.

Is he going to side with the CCP to continue to sell to that market, or is he going to forego the CHIPs ACT dollars?

I would suggest, I do not know, that he could not do both...if our government is comfortable with that, and I do not see that as a good thing or actually possible policy-wise.

So look at this press release from Intel on Feb 15th, 2022.

View attachment 568623

So, if you take every one of those talking points, on the surface it is looking at Tower's revenue to fund its CAPEX for its foundry expansion in the USA.

However, what I am told is that IFS currently, Intel Foundry Services, is saddled with a lackluster employee embodiment that cannot move it forward. 10nm++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Intel is looking to bring Tower on as a saving grace to run it foundries. I am told that Tower resources are a crucial part of IFS moving forward successfully because the talent internally is not sufficient.

So does Intel bow to the CCP, or does it flounder? The real question here is, does Intel bow to the CCP, and get the Tower deal, or forego the CCP's sign-off, which can kill the deal?

The answer seems fairly obvious to myself. If Intel bows to the CCP to get the deal done, that means that Gelsinger has no confidence in getting IFS profitable without Tower, and all that IP to build new sub-2nm will be shared/stolen across the globe.

If you want a totally different opinion on this, from someone that thinks Intel is at a great state to be a 3rd player in the ecosystem, listen to Daniel Nenni. A very smart guy, but I do not know if I agree with him. Video at the mark:

Intel's backdoor to China market? While buying a friendlier Israel/Japanese owned company. Anyways I would think it would be much easier to get work visas from literally across the globe for talent to where Intel needs them to be within a single company. Seems prudent. I am sure Samsung and TSMC will bring talent into the US to work in their Foundries as needed using visas. Great point, without the talent a foundry is worthless, well until robots can take over .

 

[Gigantopithecus]

However, what I am told is that IFS currently, Intel Foundry Services, is saddled with a lackluster employee embodiment that cannot move it forward. 10nm++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Intel is looking to bring Tower on as a saving grace to run it foundries. I am told that Tower resources are a crucial part of IFS moving forward successfully because the talent internally is not sufficient.

Out of curiosity, do you think this lack of employee ability to move it forward is an Intel engineering problem or an American engineering problem? If it's the latter then the CHIPS Act is a bandaid that does not solve the underlying problems.