Researchers: We Make Transistors 1M Times More Efficient

[Guest]

Forget 10x efficiency increase. What about 1,000,000x?

Researchers: We Make Transistors 1M Times More Efficient : Read more

 

[lashabane]

In theory; I rule the world.

It's only theory.

I do like the direction this research is headed. If only theories were put into practice faster than the current 10-15+ year timeline we're currently seeing.

 

[AusVip3r]

Efficiency in terms of energy usage or performance?

 

[GeoMan]

Nerd correction, "1M times more efficient" would be 1000 times more efficient, the numeric abbreviation M stands for mega not million. What you want is either 1G (G for gigia, or 1 000 000) or just "1 million".

 

[Pyree]

^Correction again. Thousand is kilo (10^3), million is mega (10^6), billion is giga (10^9).

 

[The_Trutherizer]

1M x Efficiency would mean almost no heat generated meaning not only that a CPU would be able to operate without a fan (which would be great), but that you could stack as many layers of transistors on top of each other as you want. Also these could probably then be clocked at several hundred or thousand GHz if the timing mechanism allows for it. If this research leads to anything concrete we may soon see the first cube form processors with as much vertical real-estate as it has horizontally.

In short if this is true then we may see single processors with as much computing power as a modern day super computer or more. I wonder how small they can make these transistors...

 

[hardcore_gamer]

[citation][nom]GeoMan[/nom]Nerd correction, "1M times more efficient" would be 1000 times more efficient, the numeric abbreviation M stands for mega not million. What you want is either 1G (G for gigia, or 1 000 000) or just "1 million".[/citation]

You are wrong and the article is right.

1 Mega = 1 Million

1 Giga = 1 Billion

 

[GeoMan]

^Correction again. Thousand is kilo (10^3), million is mega (10^6), billion is giga (10^9).

You are wrong and the article is right.

1 Mega = 1 Million

1 Giga = 1 Billion

I fail, that's what I get for trying to think before my first cup of coffee (-;

 

[Guest]

"an associated paper "Emitter-Coupled Spin-Transistor Logic""
Where is this paper? Please add a link to the Paper or the Journal. I'm sick of articles without references.

 

[bepi]

Think about that: When a technology like this will become real, it will be very hard to produce working chips for sure. As a result we will see small CPUs with one core and a very limited functionality. The chip may look like a 8086, but if it is 1.000.000 times more efficient/fast(?) it will be competitive anyway.

 

[gtvr]

I don't think they have looked at mass production techniques yet. I'm certain that over time, something like this would start out slow but get more efficient as techniques are developed.

 

[thecolorblue]

very cool

 

[Pyree]

[citation][nom]casorati[/nom]"an associated paper "Emitter-Coupled Spin-Transistor Logic""Where is this paper? Please add a link to the Paper or the Journal. I'm sick of articles without references.[/citation]
It is a conference paper for NANOARCH. The NANOARCH symposium proceedings for 2012 is yet to be published online. See here:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/conhome.jsp?punumber=1001687

The paper is :

Emitter-Coupled Spin-Transistor Logic

J. S. Friedman, Y. I. Ismail, G. Memik, A. V. Sahakian, and B. W. Wessels

In Proc. of IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Nanoscale Architectures (NANOARCH), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, July 2012

 

[freggo]

[citation][nom]GeoMan[/nom]Nerd correction, "1M times more efficient" would be 1000 times more efficient, the numeric abbreviation M stands for mega not million. What you want is either 1G (G for gigia, or 1 000 000) or just "1 million".[/citation]


Uh...
k = kilo = 1000 (every drug dealer knows that)
m = mega = 1.000.000 (Lottery winners know that)
g = giga = 1.000.000.000 ( minimum to get a Fortune 500 listing )
t = tera = 1.000.000.000.000 ( Government debts...)

 

[thehidecheck]

and moore's law continues uninterrupted.

 

[CaedenV]

[citation][nom]thehidecheck[/nom]and moore's law continues uninterrupted.[/citation]
how about: and more's law is beat up in a back alley and left for dead. If this works as advertized, and even comes out in 10 years it would still be more than the mere 'doubling' effect of more's law
[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]Uh...k = kilo = 1000 (every drug dealer knows that)m = mega = 1.000.000 (Lottery winners know that)g = giga = 1.000.000.000 ( minimum to get a Fortune 500 listing )t = tera = 1.000.000.000.000 ( Government debts...)[/citation]
you forgot peta, exa, zetta, yotta, zona, weka, vunda, uda, treda, sorta, rinta, quexa, pepta, ocha, nena, minga, and luma.... not sure what comes after luma...
http://jimvb.home.mindspring.com/unitsystem.htm
I want a 1Lumabyte HDD... I think it would last me a while 😀

 

[ashinms]

[citation][nom]The_Trutherizer[/nom]1M x Efficiency would mean almost no heat generated meaning not only that a CPU would be able to operate without a fan (which would be great), but that you could stack as many layers of transistors on top of each other as you want. Also these could probably then be clocked at several hundred or thousand GHz if the timing mechanism allows for it. If this research leads to anything concrete we may soon see the first cube form processors with as much vertical real-estate as it has horizontally. In short if this is true then we may see single processors with as much computing power as a modern day super computer or more. I wonder how small they can make these transistors...[/citation]

I hate to sound cynical, but that's kinda what Moore's law is all about. We really shouldn't be so surprised. I understand there is no guarantee that Moore's law will continue on, but if my life was at stake on a bet, I would have to say that in ten years, we could be looking at petaflop desktops.

 

[tolham]

"spintronics"

sounds like a lame punk band.

 

[phamhlam]

I just want my Graphene. Graphene everything from CPU to the coolers on top of CPU.

 

[fb39ca4]

Of course it will be three-to-five years from now 🙁

 

[fb39ca4]

[citation][nom]phamhlam[/nom]I just want my Graphene. Graphene everything from CPU to the coolers on top of CPU.[/citation]
It doesn't work for digital electronics like CPUs, they are developed for radios.

 

[Kami3k]

[citation][nom]GeoMan[/nom]Nerd correction, "1M times more efficient" would be 1000 times more efficient, the numeric abbreviation M stands for mega not million. What you want is either 1G (G for gigia, or 1 000 000) or just "1 million".[/citation]

Nerd correction uh?

Derp Correction more like it.

 

[nuvon]

Please do NOT patent this before you actually physically make it!

 

[coolestcarl]

BTW, "Moore's law" is not really a law in scientific terms, its was just Moore's opinion that has been popularized as a scientific law.

He was just an Intel engineer who just believed that transistor counts would double ever year based on historical observation at the time (1965).

Its just been used as a clever tool to showcase Intel's development prowess in keeping up / exceeding expectations of the "law".

Still quite nice to know that we are nearly on the brink of unleashing awesomely powerful digital overlords on the world. All hail our cold calculating masters! We bow to your superior logic!

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]thehidecheck[/nom]and moore's law continues uninterrupted.[/citation]

Moore's law is an observation of how often the amount of transistors that can fit in a given area on an affordable to use process node double, starting off at once a year and being closer to once every two years right now. It has nothing to do with performance nor power efficiency and is not really a law of physics or anything like that. It shouldn't even be called a law IMO because it's just an observation that isn't even constant.