Forget 3D, Purdue Scientists Have a 4D Transistor

[Guest]

Following trigate, or 3D transistors, there could be 4D transistors. But don't get excited just yet.

Forget 3D, Purdue Scientists Have a 4D Transistor : Read more

 

[tomfreak]

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]

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]

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.

+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. 😛

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?

 

[Onihikage]

How would the toxicity of an indium-gallium-arsenide chip and its production compare to those of silicon?

 

[tomfreak]

@ 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. 😀

 

[randomizer]

This adds a whole new dimension, so I call them 4D.

Does Purdue include a large marketing component in its engineering degrees? This sort of fluff normally comes from the PR squad, not the engineers.

 

[deksman]

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]

[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]

[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.

 

[godnodog]

4d is clearly for marketing, as 4D objects can´t be created (at least by current technology), IF I am not misstaken.

 

[Pyree]

[citation][nom]diddo[/nom]I would not eat neither an i-g-a nor a Si based wafer...[/citation]
How about C H O C O La Te based wafer? :lol:

 

[photonboy]

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

 

[Drazek]

and it's the same thing with transistors," Ye said.

Am I the only one who subconsciously slipped into a Pirate voice after reading that line?

 

[greghome]

For a second there, I thought this new transistor goes 88mp/h 😛

 

[army_ant7]

@ 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. 😀

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.

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).

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.)

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

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]

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]

[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]

[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

 

[namecnassianer]

For a second there, I thought this new transistor goes 88mp/h

That second hasn't happened yet, future boy.
- Dr. Emmett Brown

 

[randomizer]

[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]

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

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?

 

[jasonkaler]

I thought silicon has physical limits in the 17 nm neighborhood. - it's not very stable when less than 3 atoms wide.

 

[Prescott_666]

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.

 

[The_Trutherizer]

cool, but so lame (on the name)