Forget 3D, Purdue Scientists Have a 4D Transistor

Status
Not open for further replies.

tomfreak

Distinguished
May 18, 2011
1,334
0
19,280
0
Peide points out, silicon may run into physical limits in the 10 nm neighborhood
with me skeptical about new changes, new material. I guess it is logical for me to get a high end 14nm Broadwell-E for my next rig. Since desktop life cycle is likely to last at least 5-6yrs, longer if I go highend. By that time the new material should have mature.
 

sixdegree

Distinguished
Apr 22, 2011
157
0
18,680
0
I wonder when all this space-age tech ever gonna found their way into regular desktop. Also, stacking something on top of something else is adding a new dimension? I'll keep that in mind the next time i visit Burger King.
 

army_ant7

Distinguished
May 31, 2009
629
0
18,980
0
+1'ed you. Though it would still depend on what you'll be using that PC for. Hopefully, by that time, we'd have a lot more software that take advantage of multiple cores, 'coz if not, then you might not keep up as much as you may want to in terms of performance when newer architectures come out.

I'm imagining a time when Intel will just have to resort to subsequent "Tock's" until smaller process transistors become available.

Anyway, very interesting stuff! The reason behind calling them "4D" seems pretty cheesy to me... They should just call them "Stacked Transistor Technology" or something. Sounds cool to me... Actually, knowing how the tech works and what it's capable of are good enough to make it cool. :p

Its using indium-gallium-arsenide as the material is sort of a different thing on it's own compared to the way they made the transistors right?

 

tomfreak

Distinguished
May 18, 2011
1,334
0
19,280
0
@ army_ant7,

if they still researching now that means they still have no idea what and how is reliability of the material on a commercial product.(dont get me start asking if ever the new material CPU could last 5-6yrs or not).

After we seen all the early SSD adopters are facing, u cant blame me skeptical on new technology. I'll be getting broadwell-E, the last of its kind base on a proven >40yrs old silicon technology that rig is likely to hold out for at least 7yrs b4 become outdated. :D
 

deksman

Distinguished
Aug 29, 2011
218
12
18,685
0
Synthetic diamonds could have been used for the very same purpose since 1996.
Graphene since late 2008.
And those 2 materials would be far better for this purpose.

Synthetic diamonds also could have been used for production of displays in 1996.

Oh but wait... nevermind the premise that we can create these superior synthetic materials in abundance... the 'market' works by using 'cheap' and 'cost efficient' materials (not what is technologically more efficient/better) and then they release the least efficient product first, followed by revisions in the upcoming years for the purpose of profits.

I detest Capitalism... it doesn't promote innovation or gives us the best of what technology is capable of (in a sustainable capacity).

 

diddo

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2010
115
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]Onihikage[/nom]How would the toxicity of an indium-gallium-arsenide chip and its production compare to those of silicon?[/citation] I would not eat neither an i-g-a nor a Si based wafer...
 

kensingtron

Distinguished
Sep 21, 2011
97
0
18,640
1
[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]Does Purdue include a large marketing component in its engineering degrees? This sort of fluff normally comes from the PR squad, not the engineers.[/citation]

Academics love talking them selves up; self marketing is something they excel at. 4d, bah, way to piss the physicists off.
 
PROBLEM:

When you increase the DENSITY of transistors you always run into heat dissipation problems. This sounds essentially no different from simply stacking chips.

I remember for stacking chips they said "oh, we transfer the heat out the SIDE to solve that problem. Uh, really? Heat dissipation requires SQUARE AREA.

PC GAMERS realized this issue with the new Intel CPU's (eg. i5-3570K). It could not achieve the same high-end frequency (i.e. 5GHz) as its predecessor. (This caused much confusion, as people said it "sucked" when in fact it used less power and offered more performance at the same frequency).

I'm all for advances in technology but they have to pass the basic tests:
- heat dissipation
- manufacturing costs
 

army_ant7

Distinguished
May 31, 2009
629
0
18,980
0
A good point that applies to many other things, like games or software in general (some being very buggy at first). :)
What I was getting at is that hopefully, Broadwell-E (if ever it's made) would hold out in terms of performance for you. I doubt though that it would become "too slow" anytime soon after its theoretical release. :)

Wait a moment. Have you thought why these materials aren't "cost efficient" in the first place? I have doubts Capitalism is solely if at all, to blame. My friend, ever heard of supply and demand? (Just tell me if you want me to explain further.) :)

Just wondering, is there a possibility that this new material (indium-gallium-arsenide) would release less heat (or maybe be more heat conductive that it allows heat to dissipate through neighboring transistors and then IHS or something) and thus allow this kind of stacking of transistors? :)

 

vitreoushumor

Distinguished
Nov 17, 2008
14
0
18,520
1
Indium-gallium-arsenide is not new! It has been used for high power and high speed applications for 45 years or so. It is expensive and somewhat toxic. What is new here is the structure of the transistor.
 

wanderer11

Honorable
Jun 11, 2012
2,908
0
13,460
247
[citation][nom]godnodog[/nom]4d is clearly for marketing, as 4D objects can´t be created (at least by current technology), IF I am not misstaken.[/citation]
They mean 4d as in it goes in 4 directions. Not that there is a w, x, y, and z direction. Haven't you ever seen a 6-way intersection? You could call that 6d if you wanted.
 

tomfreak

Distinguished
May 18, 2011
1,334
0
19,280
0
[citation][nom]vitreoushumor[/nom]Indium-gallium-arsenide is not new! It has been used for high power and high speed applications for 45 years or so. It is expensive and somewhat toxic. What is new here is the structure of the transistor.[/citation]if u see Intel 3D transistor problem with ivy bridge heat issue, u'll know that even these kind of problem is start to be tricky to Intel. I hope they iron out the issues @ broadwell. So it is unlikely I would take the risk to buy a new product under this new design b4 the mature, especially we are going beyond silicon limit 10nm
 

randomizer

Champion
Moderator
[citation][nom]wanderer11[/nom]They mean 4d as in it goes in 4 directions. Not that there is a w, x, y, and z direction. Haven't you ever seen a 6-way intersection? You could call that 6d if you wanted.[/citation]

Dimensions and directions are different things, but we can overlook that in order to make it sound flashy.
 

army_ant7

Distinguished
May 31, 2009
629
0
18,980
0
I thought the Ivy Bridge CPU's had heat problems due to using "crappy" thermal paste instead of solder under the I(ntegrated)H(eat)S(ink)/metal cover?

 

Prescott_666

Distinguished
May 13, 2009
166
0
18,690
2
1) In String Theory, there are (theoretically) more than three physical dimensions. Different String theorists come up with different numbers, but 9 is a number that I have seen recently.

At very small scales it may be possible to access one or more of those dimensions. That's where I hoped "4D" was going, that would be cool. But no, it's just BS. Stacking does not create a fourth dimension.

2) It's time to stop referring to feature size in nano meters. The first source I could find with an internet search says that the diameter of a silicon atom is .234 nm, so a 20nm feature woud be about 85 silicon atoms across. A 10nm feature woud be about 43 silicon atoms across. At these scales, it would make more sense to use the number of atoms across than the size in nano meters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS