I've not seen _anything_ about a gate the size of an atom. The problem is that to build a transistor, you need two junctions between dissimilar materials. NPN or PNP for example. That has to be at least 3 atoms and nobody has put that together that I am aware of. Physics suggests it is not possible in fact.Terry McCracken wrote:AFAIK it's already been done with experimental logic gates, some the size of a few molecules, and some the size of a single atom.bob wrote:None of this matters as you can't make a gate with 2 atoms, so it's a moot point...Terry McCracken wrote:You didn't read what I wrote. I said a true nanoprocessor would use a 1 nanometer process, not 16.CRoberson wrote:It would not be a nanoprocessor. A 16 nanometer "process"
(not processor) doesn't mean the cpu is 16 nanometers in size.
Think about it; you can easily see the cpu in your computer without
a microscope.
Try and view the circuits without a microscope, you can't! We're not talking about the size of the die, or the overall size of the chip, but rather the size of a single logic gate.
By your reasoning microprocessors are not microprocessors as you can view the chip!
Think About It!
feature-size is not going _that_ small.
Do you think microchip technology is the end of computing? We haven't yet begun!
Opteron versus Xeon
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 20943
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
- Location: Birmingham, AL
Re: Opteron versus Xeon
Re: Opteron versus Xeon
There are other methods, I'm not talking about breaking the laws of physics, but that might be possible too, but that's another matter.bob wrote:I've not seen _anything_ about a gate the size of an atom. The problem is that to build a transistor, you need two junctions between dissimilar materials. NPN or PNP for example. That has to be at least 3 atoms and nobody has put that together that I am aware of. Physics suggests it is not possible in fact.Terry McCracken wrote:AFAIK it's already been done with experimental logic gates, some the size of a few molecules, and some the size of a single atom.bob wrote:None of this matters as you can't make a gate with 2 atoms, so it's a moot point...Terry McCracken wrote:You didn't read what I wrote. I said a true nanoprocessor would use a 1 nanometer process, not 16.CRoberson wrote:It would not be a nanoprocessor. A 16 nanometer "process"
(not processor) doesn't mean the cpu is 16 nanometers in size.
Think about it; you can easily see the cpu in your computer without
a microscope.
Try and view the circuits without a microscope, you can't! We're not talking about the size of the die, or the overall size of the chip, but rather the size of a single logic gate.
By your reasoning microprocessors are not microprocessors as you can view the chip!
Think About It!
feature-size is not going _that_ small.
Do you think microchip technology is the end of computing? We haven't yet begun!
As for your 3 atoms, I believe experimentally it has been done. Although it's not yet practicle for everyday use.
Wait another 5-10 years. I bet you'll be surprised
Best,
Terry
-
- Posts: 20943
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
- Location: Birmingham, AL
Re: Opteron versus Xeon
the problem is that those three atoms are wider than a nanometer.Terry McCracken wrote:There are other methods, I'm not talking about breaking the laws of physics, but that might be possible too, but that's another matter.bob wrote:I've not seen _anything_ about a gate the size of an atom. The problem is that to build a transistor, you need two junctions between dissimilar materials. NPN or PNP for example. That has to be at least 3 atoms and nobody has put that together that I am aware of. Physics suggests it is not possible in fact.Terry McCracken wrote:AFAIK it's already been done with experimental logic gates, some the size of a few molecules, and some the size of a single atom.bob wrote:None of this matters as you can't make a gate with 2 atoms, so it's a moot point...Terry McCracken wrote:You didn't read what I wrote. I said a true nanoprocessor would use a 1 nanometer process, not 16.CRoberson wrote:It would not be a nanoprocessor. A 16 nanometer "process"
(not processor) doesn't mean the cpu is 16 nanometers in size.
Think about it; you can easily see the cpu in your computer without
a microscope.
Try and view the circuits without a microscope, you can't! We're not talking about the size of the die, or the overall size of the chip, but rather the size of a single logic gate.
By your reasoning microprocessors are not microprocessors as you can view the chip!
Think About It!
feature-size is not going _that_ small.
Do you think microchip technology is the end of computing? We haven't yet begun!
As for your 3 atoms, I believe experimentally it has been done. Although it's not yet practicle for everyday use.
Wait another 5-10 years. I bet you'll be surprised
Best,
Terry
IBM has dragged individual atoms around with a variant of a tunneling electron microscope. But that was done atom by atom. Which isn't going to cut it when making a chip unless you want to make one per 100 years.
Re: Opteron versus Xeon
Yes it is bigger than a nanometer, It would be ~1.5 nm.bob wrote:the problem is that those three atoms are wider than a nanometer.Terry McCracken wrote:There are other methods, I'm not talking about breaking the laws of physics, but that might be possible too, but that's another matter.bob wrote:I've not seen _anything_ about a gate the size of an atom. The problem is that to build a transistor, you need two junctions between dissimilar materials. NPN or PNP for example. That has to be at least 3 atoms and nobody has put that together that I am aware of. Physics suggests it is not possible in fact.Terry McCracken wrote:AFAIK it's already been done with experimental logic gates, some the size of a few molecules, and some the size of a single atom.bob wrote:None of this matters as you can't make a gate with 2 atoms, so it's a moot point...Terry McCracken wrote:You didn't read what I wrote. I said a true nanoprocessor would use a 1 nanometer process, not 16.CRoberson wrote:It would not be a nanoprocessor. A 16 nanometer "process"
(not processor) doesn't mean the cpu is 16 nanometers in size.
Think about it; you can easily see the cpu in your computer without
a microscope.
Try and view the circuits without a microscope, you can't! We're not talking about the size of the die, or the overall size of the chip, but rather the size of a single logic gate.
By your reasoning microprocessors are not microprocessors as you can view the chip!
Think About It!
feature-size is not going _that_ small.
Do you think microchip technology is the end of computing? We haven't yet begun!
As for your 3 atoms, I believe experimentally it has been done. Although it's not yet practicle for everyday use.
Wait another 5-10 years. I bet you'll be surprised
Best,
Terry
IBM has dragged individual atoms around with a variant of a tunneling electron microscope. But that was done atom by atom. Which isn't going to cut it when making a chip unless you want to make one per 100 years.
Maybe chips aren't the key?
A new technology, perhaps? Maybe we can shrink atoms? Maybe something else, or reduce dimensions? Or something mind blowing that hasn't even been thought of, let alone considered? Transistors are getting a little old
Looking for Ideas Regards,
Terry