Fractal Design Define 7 Compact review
Lian Li Galahad 360 liquid cooler review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - July 2020
Patriot Viper Steel DDR4 3600 MHz (64GB) review
Red Dead Redemption 2: PC graphics benchmark review (revisited)
Kioxia Exceria 960 GB SATA3 SSD review
HP Portable P500 1TB Portable USB3 SSD review
EK-Quantum Magnitude WaterBlock Review
Death Stranding: PC graphics performance benchmark review
Deepcool DQ850-M-V2L 850 W PSU review
28nm the end of Moore's Law?
The 28nm process is actually the last node of Moore's Law according to EE Times. The site argues that we can continue to make smaller transistors and pack more of them into the same size die, but can't continue to reduce the cost with current technology. Therefore, EE Times claims 28nm will be the most cost-efficient process node for many years to come.
Beyond this point, we can continue to make smaller transistors and pack more of them into the same size die, but we cannot continue to reduce the cost. In most cases, in fact, the same SoC will actually have a higher cost!
The famous Moore's Law was presented as an observation by Moore in his 1965 Electronics paper "The future of integrated electronics," in which he said:
The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year. Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase. Over the longer term, the rate of increase is a bit more uncertain, although there is no reason to believe it will not remain nearly constant for at least 10 years.
Clearly, Moore's Law is about "The complexity for minimum component costs," and the minimum component cost will be at the 28nm node for many years, as we will detail in the remainder of this blog.
BLEH!
Senior Member
Posts: 5978
Joined: 2010-10-17
Senior Member
Posts: 5978
Joined: 2010-10-17
#4790518 Posted on: 03/28/2014 03:36 PM
Is Intel's 22 nm ACTUALLY 22 nm?
Is Intel's 22 nm ACTUALLY 22 nm?
Cyberdyne
Senior Member
Posts: 3482
Joined: 2010-01-16
Senior Member
Posts: 3482
Joined: 2010-01-16
#4790673 Posted on: 03/28/2014 07:48 PM
Current GPUs are 28nm (AMD 200 series, NVIDIA 700 series).
Next is 20nm (Maxwell and AMD Pirate Islands).
Current Intel CPUs are 22 nm, Broadwell will be 14nm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Tick-Tock
and see this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_shrink
I know GPU's are. But when we think of the tick-tock die shrink and moores law, we think of CPU's. The 22nm CPU's have been doing just fine. I'm just trying to understand the article better. Unless it's like BLEH says and it's all a lie. IDK.
Current GPUs are 28nm (AMD 200 series, NVIDIA 700 series).
Next is 20nm (Maxwell and AMD Pirate Islands).
Current Intel CPUs are 22 nm, Broadwell will be 14nm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Tick-Tock
and see this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_shrink
I know GPU's are. But when we think of the tick-tock die shrink and moores law, we think of CPU's. The 22nm CPU's have been doing just fine. I'm just trying to understand the article better. Unless it's like BLEH says and it's all a lie. IDK.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12825
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 12825
Joined: 2004-05-16
#4790680 Posted on: 03/28/2014 07:58 PM
Intel made 22nm cost effective by moving to 3D Tri-Gate/FinFET transistor technology.
AMD is moving to that with both Global Foundries & TSMC at 16/14nm.
They need to move to 450mm wafers to drive costs down. Nvidia has been asking for this for a while (http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1261542).
It's becoming more and more costly to shrink these things.
Edit: You guys also have to understand that Intel is like god mode of semiconductor manufacturing. They don't even start using new nodes in mass production till they have 90%+ yields. TSMC on the other hand chargers customers by the wafer, regardless of the yield. Honestly I'm surprised AMD has been able to keep it's CPU's so price competitive for so long, Intel's manufacturing is like light years ahead.
That TSMC pricing structure is also the reason why NVIDA prices their chips so high (like the new Titan Z). GK110 is huge and with that comes a higher chance to get a bad chip. Nvidia is paying the same price regardless of what comes out at the end.
Intel made 22nm cost effective by moving to 3D Tri-Gate/FinFET transistor technology.
AMD is moving to that with both Global Foundries & TSMC at 16/14nm.
They need to move to 450mm wafers to drive costs down. Nvidia has been asking for this for a while (http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1261542).
It's becoming more and more costly to shrink these things.
Edit: You guys also have to understand that Intel is like god mode of semiconductor manufacturing. They don't even start using new nodes in mass production till they have 90%+ yields. TSMC on the other hand chargers customers by the wafer, regardless of the yield. Honestly I'm surprised AMD has been able to keep it's CPU's so price competitive for so long, Intel's manufacturing is like light years ahead.
That TSMC pricing structure is also the reason why NVIDA prices their chips so high (like the new Titan Z). GK110 is huge and with that comes a higher chance to get a bad chip. Nvidia is paying the same price regardless of what comes out at the end.
Reddoguk
Senior Member
Posts: 1891
Joined: 2010-05-26
Senior Member
Posts: 1891
Joined: 2010-05-26
#4790910 Posted on: 03/29/2014 02:54 AM
I think the law could stand a lot, lot longer. The question is will we be able to afford it.
They could do it but i doubt whether the consumer will ever see it in home PC's.
I think the law could stand a lot, lot longer. The question is will we be able to afford it.
They could do it but i doubt whether the consumer will ever see it in home PC's.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 989
Joined: 2012-08-05
^^ We don`t know if Maxwell or Pirate Islands will be on 20nm,but we know that Pascal will be 20nm.