Comments on: Moore’s Law threatened by lithography woes

By: J.D.

J.D. — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 18:34:25 +0000

Additional information, it seems as though something like I suggest above is already in practice?
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/132604-intel-invests-in-asml-to-boost-extreme-uv-lithography-massive-450mm-wafers

By: J.D.

J.D. — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 18:51:39 +0000

As I read the article (and some of the comments) I percieved a process design issue – you know time to change the system? I believe that since Intel will already be forced to re-engineer their fab process and machinery, that it would make better sense to add exposure elements to the system – in other words… you want brighter? Add more bulbs. Wouldn’t it be more efficient to increase the number of bulbs used in exposure and increase the etching efficiency and throughput ONCE – to 10 nm – rather than to go through pointless exercises of produce-standdown-upgrade-produce-etc.?

By: tim the realist

tim the realist — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:28:15 +0000

I’ll explain this a little better than the article does.

10nM feature etching is possible today. it’s all a matter of focusing the light onto a pattern. The brighter the light source, the larger the pattern that can be etched at one time. if a light source is dimmer than it takes several exposure patterns to complete one entire circuit layout. This takes additional time on the equipment for each chip so there is less throughput / yield from a fab.

By: Editor

Editor — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:21:44 +0000

… or with the laws of physics: the diffraction limit, in this case.

By: Sean Brazell

Sean Brazell — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 05:17:45 +0000

Moore’s Law is NOT losing steam – it’s a problem with mass production – not invention.

By: Bri

Bri — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 04:21:50 +0000

Don’t they have to cool the quantum computers down to near zereo. That would be one cold laptop!

By: Bri

Bri — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 04:18:03 +0000

I forget which one this is supposed to be. Is it the end by jaguars?

By: Editor

Editor — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 02:42:05 +0000

“Maybe now, quantum computing, neuromorphic engineering, and other novel computing techniques will get some of the big money spent on digital devices”… “huge amounts of money being thrown at quantum computing”

I assume you are referring to the recent $30 million investment in D-Wave? A tiny percentage of the billions spent on chip development and computers (and other digital devices). Will not meeting arbitrary marketing dates have serious impacts? I don’t know. And I don’t have data for spending on neuromorphic engineering, but it’s for R&D, so in the low millions and over many years. I don’t know of any studies predicting development of marketable devices based on speculative quantum and neuromorphic technologies in this decade. If you have better numbers and market research studies on this, I would greatly appreciate updates.

By: MrFriendly

MrFriendly — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 00:12:29 +0000

“Not likely”

Why? We’re already seeing huge amounts of money being thrown at quantum computing research.

By: Editor

Editor — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 23:40:17 +0000

Yes, we apologize. We are replacing it with Mayan predictions. We advise preparing for the end of the world on Dec. 21. :)

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 23:31:35 +0000

Does this mean that the Singularity is cancelled?

By: Editor

Editor — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 23:11:59 +0000

Yes, and it will be interesting to see if that cost will be passed along down the chain to users.

By: mikandrial

mikandrial — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 20:05:21 +0000

“Without EUV, Intel believes it will have to write as many as five immersion patterns on a chip which will take more time and money but is still economical.” – which to me means they can, but not without great cost; a stop gap measure till they can use the real thing.

By: melajara

melajara — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 18:48:25 +0000

I’ll answer my own question. I don’t think memristors will be GENERALLY available next year. Initially I estimated their impact on neuromorphic computing for 2015, now say 2017 for actual products.

By: alliwant

alliwant — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 17:53:18 +0000

Sounds as though the end for EUV is approaching. Does anyone know the theoretical max resolution?

By: Editor

Editor — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 16:44:11 +0000

Added “Without EUV, Intel believes it will have to write as many as five immersion patterns on a chip which will take more time and money but is still economical.”

By: melajara

melajara — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:48:01 +0000

Not before general availability of the memristor.
This was planned for 2013. Still on schedule?

By: Marcos Marin

Marcos Marin — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:35:45 +0000

Good point, I would say none! This is probably a tantrum to scare the industry into getting them more funding.

By: Marcos Marin

Marcos Marin — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:32:29 +0000

Yes, let us continue dripping tech on the undeserving unwashed masses instead of simply coming out with the 3D designs we already have…

By: Uri

Uri — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:30:47 +0000

so we got to wait longer? ;(

By: snake0

snake0 — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:30:46 +0000

The article contradicts itself – it says that ‘real’ 14nm isn’t actually possible without EUV and yet Intel can shrink to 10nm WITHOUT it. So which is it??

By: Editor

Editor — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:01:13 +0000

Not likely

By: Dudegonebad

Dudegonebad — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 14:39:06 +0000

Quantum computing is getting thefunding the advances warrant. Sorry – no quantum laptop anytime soon – let’s get on with the EUV.

By: MrFriendly

MrFriendly — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 14:17:12 +0000

This is good. Maybe now, quantum computing, neuromorphic engineering, and other novel computing techniques will get some of the big money spent on digital devices.