Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 22 Nov 2013.
"It's just getting really hard."
Then make larger chips, problem solved.
Larger chip = less chip per slice of silicon = higher price per die.
Doesn't scale. Intel's predicting that its 14nm chips will cost 27 per cent more to make - but the drop in node size means they're smaller, bringing the cost back down. If they weren't smaller, every processor generation would cost more and more - until they're entirely unaffordable. Let's say you can fit 100 Pentium 5 processors on a single wafer; the Pentium 6, as required by Moore's Law, has roughly double the transistors and so, by your plan, is double the size - meaning you can only fit 50 on the wafer. Whoops, your per-chip manufacturing costs just doubled. The Pentium 7? Doubled again. Pentium 8? That's another doubling.
If the entry-level Pentium 5 cost £50, you're looking at £100 for the entry-level Pentium 6, £200 for the Pentium 7, and £400 for the Pentium 8. Eventually, by the Pentium 11, you can only get one chip per wafer - and that's the end of that game, unless you're going to make the Pentium 12 span two wafers and glue 'em together. Which is fine, except you're looking at £6,400 (plus the cost of the interconnect) per chip at this point for the entry level model.
TL;DR: Shrink or get off the pot, to coin a phrase.
Imagine the heatsink to cool that bugger though.
It had to come to an end one day, or at least slow down.
Physics starts getting in the way when things get small, the brains need to work their magic and come up with new ways to do things.
That's when it starts to become interesting . Return of the co-processors ? I see more and more co-processors being released / tested (Xeon PHY, Caustic R2500, etc.). It's probably time to offload some calculus to specialized chips / cards and let the CPU do the basic stuff (dispatch the workload, do the single threaded computing, etc.).
Or perhaps pretty stagnant!
I mean't Interesting on the "chipset designer side". They have to find innovative stuff instead of just shrinking the size and throwing more transistors at it.
Does Moore's Law really matter? As long as progress is still being made, who cares?
I'm sure quantum computing will blow Moore's Law out of the water when it's tamed.
I don't believe MS for one minute that "it's getting really hard". The reason they are not pushing harder is that AMD IS finding it really hard and MS don't have to try anymore.
s/MS/Intel/g (Also, Intel is a process node in front of everyone else - so they'll hit these problems first. They're not making it up, you know: at these sizes, every single node transition is like getting blood out of a stone.)
I'm sure its difficult but I still feel intel are being lazy because they don't have any real competition anymore (not in the mid-high end x86 market anyway).
By MS don't you mean Intel? MS don't make chips...
That is a subjective feeling, not an informed opinion (unless you are a chip designer, in which case I take it all back).
There are other technologies coming our way: optical computing, quantum computing, new substrates. They'll find a way around it. But just as the leap from valve to transistor, and then transistor to silicon took time and effort, so will the leap to the next technology.
lol well spotted, for some reason i get those two mixed up from time to time.
@ Nexxo, yes that it just my gut feeling. When intel first came out with core 2 I was reading stuff saying they were predicting they would have over 16 cores on a chip in the next few years - that must have been over five years ago now and I'm pretty sure they are still shoveling out dual core parts at the lower end and (I may be wrong) quad and hex core parts at the top end. So my gut feeling does have a reason for the mistrust.
8 core/16 thread xeons are out there.
Never mind that: how about the 12-core, 24-thread Xeon that's going into the new Mac Pro? Plus, if core count is your thing, there's Xeon Phi: 50 Pentium-class cores on a single board, with Knights Landing bringing the same tech to dedicated CPUs in the near future.
I stand corrected, but it's still nowhere near what they said to expect. I guess I just have a deep trust issues towards big corporations !
Intel may be doing well in the desktop/laptop market, but ARM is already encroaching on the server market and handing Intel its ass in the fast-growing mobile market. Intel rightly perceives that more powerful chips are not the priority --current products comfortably meet most people's needs. Low consumption chips is where it's at. Their focus lies there for the moment.
Separate names with a comma.