1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News GlobalFoundries prepares Tri-Gate competitor

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by arcticstoat, 12 Jul 2011.

  1. arcticstoat

    arcticstoat New Member

    Joined:
    19 May 2004
    Posts:
    916
    Likes Received:
    13
  2. r3loaded

    r3loaded Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    31
    " How small can we make silicon transistors before they become unmanageable?"
    Well, that's an easy one to answer - the lower bound is going to be the size of silicon atoms themselves :)
     
  3. Jezcentral

    Jezcentral Member

    Joined:
    7 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    127
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, are we on course for Moore's Law to break down in 2017?
     
  4. Xir

    Xir Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    26 Apr 2006
    Posts:
    5,251
    Likes Received:
    88
    wouldn't happen to have mentioned something like "Triple-Spacer" or "Finfet" now would he?
     
  5. WildThing

    WildThing Member

    Joined:
    26 Jul 2007
    Posts:
    824
    Likes Received:
    20
    Nice to see Intel's competition doing something, and thanks Paul for the gate-first vs gate-last explanation, been wanting to read up on that for a while now. Cheers.
     
  6. azazel1024

    azazel1024 New Member

    Joined:
    3 Jun 2010
    Posts:
    487
    Likes Received:
    10
    Last I heard the issues are around 8-10nm and that is about where any current and most theoretical manufacturing techniques are unable to produce a viable transister. So we have at least another 4-6 years before we are at neeing a major "break through" to keep advancing transister size.

    The gist I got from the article is basically that "Hi, we are 1-2 years behind Intel, but don't worry, that works for us!"

    Most of the time I hear things about using "backwards" technology because you haven't innovated or there is a defect, companies always spin it as a "design feature" or "it gives us X benifit". So 10-20% space savings compared to gate last at 28nm, I doubt that, or if true it is because of your manufacturing technique and the way you are laying out the chips. That or it may be true, but yields are significantly lower for you to change or too much time redesigning the process. Or it may also be true, but transistor performance is lower.

    Since Intel and TSMC are doing gate last I don't think they decided to do that for no reason.
     
    l3v1ck likes this.
  7. Guest-16

    Guest-16 Guest

    Thanks for the write-up Paul!
     
  8. John_T

    John_T Member

    Joined:
    3 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    528
    Likes Received:
    20
    I love reading all this kind of stuff, even though I'll admit to only understanding about half of it!

    I am amazed by the constant shrinking process, even more so when I look back at some of the older PC's I've had over the years. The original Pentium was, I believe, based on an 800nm technology - so to now have 28nm, to be preparing 20nm - and to be talking about 14nm transistors being well underway, I do think it's all pretty amazing.

    Just roll out a tape measure to 800mm, then roll it back down to 20mm & 14mm for a visual comparison of scale. It's astonishing what they have been able to achieve in such a short space of time really...
     
    l3v1ck likes this.
  9. ssj12

    ssj12 Member

    Joined:
    12 Sep 2007
    Posts:
    687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Why is it I suspect they saw Intel's tech announcement and said "oh crap, get to the drawing board ASAP!?"
     
  10. Guest-16

    Guest-16 Guest

    FinFETs (branded 3D transistors) were originally developed by IBM actually iirc - who GloFo is in a co-operative development relationship.

    It was on Ee times I think.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multigate_device
     
  11. Xir

    Xir Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    26 Apr 2006
    Posts:
    5,251
    Likes Received:
    88
    Yup. The AMD-IBM alliance (direct follower of the AMD-Motorola alliance) :D
     
  12. stonedsurd

    stonedsurd Is a cackling Yuletide Belgian

    Joined:
    11 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    7,718
    Likes Received:
    272
    That's more along the lines of what I'd like to see around here. Great article and well done Bit!

    PS: Paul, do have an aunt named Holly?
     
  13. ssj12

    ssj12 Member

    Joined:
    12 Sep 2007
    Posts:
    687
    Likes Received:
    1
    That sounds like a horrid alliance. Thank god I have my Droid X2.
     
  14. Xir

    Xir Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    26 Apr 2006
    Posts:
    5,251
    Likes Received:
    88
    The AMD-Motorola Alliance gave you copper-interconnects which led to the break of the 1Ghz barrier.
    (while Intel still said...naah Aluminum will do just fine)
     
  15. saneblane

    saneblane New Member

    Joined:
    19 Jul 2011
    Posts:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    intel may be ahead in lithography but IBM is always ahead in R&D, that company just knows how to conduct themselves. and what they develop is the research they do benefit so many companies and people. amd then their is AMD, the company with the most pioneering chip designs, with the bulldozer arch, we don't even know how to count the cores. this is what happens when competitions is tough, people innovate
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page