• We've upgraded our forums. Please post any issues/requests in this thread.

R&D: 15 nm Circuits Have Wires Just 150 Atoms Apart

qubit

Overclocked quantum bit
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
14,542 (3.98/day)
Likes
8,049
Location
Quantum Well UK
System Name Quantumville™
Processor Intel Core i7-2700K at stock (hits 5 gees+ easily)
Motherboard Asus P8Z68-V PRO/GEN3
Cooling Noctua NH-D14
Memory 16GB (4 x 4GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 PC3-12800 C9 1600MHz)
Video Card(s) Zotac GTX 1080 AMP! Extreme Edition
Storage Samsung 850 Pro 256GB | WD Green 4TB
Display(s) BenQ XL2720Z | Asus VG278HE (both 27", 144Hz, 3D Vision 2, 1080p)
Case Cooler Master HAF 922
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Fatal1ty PCIe
Power Supply Corsair HX 850W v1
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
#1
The process of microchip miniaturization continues apace, with researchers at McGill University and Sandia National Laboratories having build a circuit that has two wires that are separated by a mere 150 atoms having built them at the incredibly tiny 15 nm (nanometres) level. Circuits of this size should bring all the usual benefits of reduced power and heat, along with greater functionality due to the larger transistor density. Of course, the challenges of working at this level are great. Dan Olds, an analyst at The Gabriel Consulting Group said of this research: "This kind of research also uncovers other potential problems arising from ever smaller shrinks. Getting to 15nm or 16nm will mean smaller and more powerful devices that are more energy efficient. But when we're talking about such a small scale, designing chips that can be mass-produced with decent yields is quite a challenge. There will also be challenges for the design of devices that will use these processors." Of course, the benefits are significant and therefore well worth the challenge: "Devices based on 15nm processes will pack more performance and functionality into much smaller form factors. Functions that used to take two or more chips will be accomplished by one transistor-jammed processor." Of course, Intel, the world leader in chip manufacturing is also researching manufacturing at this process node, but there isn't much information available about it at this time.

Show full news post
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
3,121 (1.39/day)
Likes
892
Processor Ci7 5960X
Motherboard RVE
Cooling Triple Aquacomputer AMS 840 with D5
Memory Some random DDR4
Video Card(s) GTX 1080 Ti
Storage 960 EVO
Display(s) Dell U3011 2560x1600 + Dell 2408WFP 1200x1920 (Portrait)
Case Dimastech Bench EasyXL
Audio Device(s) Essence STX
Power Supply AX 1500i
Software Win10
#2
Now THIS is small o_O just think about the benefits of such fab node applied to CPUs... We can already reach insane frequencies on air with the 32nm, 22nm is almost ready to show us new rooftops! Exciting times are ahead for sure :)
 
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
2,680 (0.89/day)
Likes
693
Location
Reaching your left retina.
#4
Wow, that article is hilarious in 2011. And the comments? Bwahahahahaha.

My favourite comment is the first one:

If 10 GHz is the best that Intel can do by 2011, AMD or somebody else is going to eat their lunch. Intel better pick up the pace if they want to remain dominant.
:roll:

BTW you want your 10 Ghz CPU? I want my 128 Ghz one! Or whatever Rob had taken, he damn sure was high when he wrote that.
 
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
343 (0.16/day)
Likes
34
Location
Ft Stewart
System Name Queen Bee
Processor 3570k @ 4.0GHz
Motherboard Gigabyte UD3 Z77
Cooling Water Loop by EK
Memory 8GB Corsair 1600 DDR3
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 970 Gaming WaterCooled
Storage 1x Western Digital 500GB Black 1x Intel 20GB 311 SSD
Display(s) BenQ XL2420G
Case CoolTek W2
Power Supply Corsair 650Watt
Software Windows 7 Pro
#5
If you think about it though a Intel 3960X with 3.3GHZ across all 6 cores is a combined 19.8GHZ. So maybe they were thinking along the lines of a single core. Which became outdated with 64bit processing and the limitations of silicon.
 

Trackr

New Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
265 (0.11/day)
Likes
15
System Name White Phoenix
Processor Intel Core-i7 2600k @ 5.0Ghz 1.45v 24/7
Motherboard Gigabyte 'P67'-UD7
Cooling Dual-Fan TRUE (Lapped)
Memory G.Skill 16GB (4x4GB) 2000Mhz CL9
Video Card(s) nVidia GTX 480 SLi
Storage Crucial RealSSD C300 256GB
Display(s) Dell 'PLP' - 2007FP | 3007WFP-HC | 2007FP
Case Antec p190 (Modded)
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi Titanium PCIe
Power Supply Silverstone 1000w (Single-Rail)
Software Windows 7 SP1 Ultimate 64-bit
#6
That was before Dual-Cores existed.

You should have compared an i7-3960x to a Pentium 4 1.0Ghz.

With architecture, cache size, etc etc. improvements, plus 6 cores and 3.3x core clock..

It should be equivalent to a 150Ghz Pentium 4, in terms of performance.

I'd say Moore's Law is being proven correct.
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Messages
1,526 (0.46/day)
Likes
375
System Name Lailalo / Edelweiss
Processor FX 8320 @ 4.5Ghz / i7 3610QM @2.3-3.2Ghz
Motherboard ASrock 990FX Extreme 4 / Lenovo Y580
Cooling Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus / Big hunk of copper
Memory 16GB Samsung 30nm DDR3 1600+ / 8GB Hyundai DDR3 1600
Video Card(s) XFX R9 390 / GTX 660M 2GB
Storage Seagate 3TB/1TB + OCZ Synapse 64GB SSD Cache / Western Digital 1TB 7200RPM
Display(s) LG Ultrawide 29in @ 2560x1080 / Lenovo 15.6 @ 1920x1080
Case Coolermaster Storm Sniper / Lenovo Y580
Audio Device(s) Asus Xonar DG / Whatever Lenovo used
Power Supply Antec Truepower Blue 750W + Thermaltake 5.25in 250W / Big Power Brick
Software Windows 10 Pro / Windows 10 Home
#7
Not necessarily before dual cores existed. GPUs were going multicore back then. But on the CPU front, yeah, we had dual CPU machines but that was it.

If they never hit the wall on speed, literally we prolly wouldn't have multicore in CPUs. Multicore systems would possibly exist in servers and even then it would be mostly multi sockets. 64bit, may or may not have happened as fast. Without AMD I'd say it would have happened later. Intel slapped 64 together in a hurry to confront AMD after it was clear things were moving to 64bit. If there is no pressure I don't see Intel in a hurry to innovate.

Same with any company. We saw the same with nVidia till ATI got their act together. They sat on the G92 for years. Same with DX10.1 and Tesselators. ATI did it, NV pressured devs not to use it and then finally when ATI starts coming back, they whip out the tech with DX11.
 
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
919 (0.28/day)
Likes
223
Location
Portland, OR
Processor AMD FX-8350
Motherboard Asus M5A99X Evo
Cooling Noctua
Memory 16GB G.SKILL Sniper DDR3 1866
Video Card(s) EVGA 980ti FTW
Storage (OS)Samsung 950 Pro (512GB), (Data) WD Reds
Display(s) 24" Dell UltraSharp U2412M
Case Fractal Design Define R4
Audio Device(s) Sennheiser GAME ONE
Power Supply Corsair HX750i
Mouse Mionix Castor
Keyboard Deck Hassium Pro
Software Windows 7 Pro x64
#8
If you think about it though a Intel 3960X with 3.3GHZ across all 6 cores is a combined 19.8GHZ. So maybe they were thinking along the lines of a single core. Which became outdated with 64bit processing and the limitations of silicon.
except that no one knows how to write code that is optimized to proficiently use the cores to perform at anywhere near that combined level of performance
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
7,642 (2.71/day)
Likes
1,984
Location
Jakarta, Indonesia
System Name micropage7
Processor Intel G4400
Motherboard MSI B150M Bazooka D3
Cooling Stock ( Lapped )
Memory 16 Gb Team Xtreem DDR3
Video Card(s) Nvidia GTX460
Storage Seagate 1 TB, 5oo Gb and SSD A-Data 128 Gb
Display(s) LG 19 inch LCD Wide Screen
Case HP dx6120 MT
Audio Device(s) Stock
Power Supply Be Quiet 600 Watt
Software Windows 7 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Classified
#9
15nm = more complicated
more complicated could mean more fail percentages
15nm could mean better performance with lower power consumption
its kinda hard to imagine. we just had 32nm just few years ago then we hit 15nm (although maybe it need time before wide applied)
 

de.das.dude

Pro Indian Modder
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
8,201 (3.00/day)
Likes
2,387
Location
Pune
System Name la de da... | Samsung NP355V5C-S05IN
Processor FX 8320 | AMD A8-4500
Motherboard ASRock 990FX Extreme 4 | Samsung something something
Cooling CM Hyper 212 EVO push:pull+ 1 panaflow 113CFM + 2 x 120mm NZXTs | Coolermaster Notepal
Memory 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair Vengeance 1600MHz CL9 | Samsunng 4GB + 2GB DDR3 1600MHz
Video Card(s) AMD 7790 GHZ edition! | 7670M + 7640G
Storage 1TB WD10EZEX | W.D 500GB Green AADS | Samsung 1TB
Display(s) dell S2240l 1080p IPS 21.5" | Samsung antiglare 15.6"
Case NZXT Guardian 921RB(@home) and Antec ASK4000B U3(Current)
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC892 with THX True Studio | Realtek something
Power Supply Corsair GS600 | 90W Brick, 6 cell 48000mAh battery
Mouse Logitech G400, GOD TIER MOUSE!! LOGitech F310 gamepad!
Keyboard Logitech K200
Software Windows 8.1 x64 | Windows 8.1 x64
Benchmark Scores real men do bench presses not bench marks.
#10
Wow, that article is hilarious in 2011. And the comments? Bwahahahahaha.

My favourite comment is the first one:



:roll:

BTW you want your 10 Ghz CPU? I want my 128 Ghz one! Or whatever Rob had taken, he damn sure was high when he wrote that.
intel more fail than meets the eye.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
3,121 (1.39/day)
Likes
892
Processor Ci7 5960X
Motherboard RVE
Cooling Triple Aquacomputer AMS 840 with D5
Memory Some random DDR4
Video Card(s) GTX 1080 Ti
Storage 960 EVO
Display(s) Dell U3011 2560x1600 + Dell 2408WFP 1200x1920 (Portrait)
Case Dimastech Bench EasyXL
Audio Device(s) Essence STX
Power Supply AX 1500i
Software Win10
#11
I don't think we will see this lithography soon because Intel will probably dominate the x86 market without a strong AMD that forces them to innovate... Unless ARM proves itself a threat if it enters this business seriously or Intel itself will focus more on developing a SoC to challenge ARM on its field.
Of course Ivy Bridge is at the door and as I said exciting times are ahead, even though the situation of the desktop CPUs will probably hit a slowdown
 

XoR

New Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
27 (0.01/day)
Likes
1
#12
my crappy i3 (from beginning of 2010) is 15x faster than processors the had in 2000 (~PIII 1GHz) and more than 6x faster in single core perfrormance. Intels 10GHz figure is because they had high hopes for NetBurst and it is understandable because they were able to double clock speed with this arch.
 
Joined
Apr 16, 2010
Messages
2,878 (1.03/day)
Likes
879
Location
Portugal
System Name _JP_'s Daily Driver
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 1700
Motherboard MSI X370 Gaming Plus
Cooling Noctua NH-C12P SE14 + NM-AM4 + NF-P14r
Memory 2x 8GB G.Skill Trident Z (F4-3200C16D-16GTZB)(Hynix)
Video Card(s) MSI AMD Radeon R9 280X Gaming
Storage HyperX Savage 240GB + KC300 240GB + 750EVO 500GB
Display(s) LG Flatron W2361V 23'' FHD
Case NOX Blaze
Audio Device(s) ASUS Xonar DX
Power Supply Corsair TX650M
Mouse Microsoft Comfort Mouse 4500
Keyboard Logitech Media Keyboard (PS/2)
Software Windows 10 x86-64 (1703)
#13
If you think about it though a Intel 3960X with 3.3GHZ across all 6 cores is a combined 19.8GHZ. So maybe they were thinking along the lines of a single core. Which became outdated with 64bit processing and the limitations of silicon.
I remember stores here trying to sell HT chips and early dual-cores with that line of thought. A dual-core at 2.2GHz doesn't equal a single-core at 4.4GHz. It never worked that way.
That was before Dual-Cores existed.

You should have compared an i7-3960x to a Pentium 4 1.0Ghz.

With architecture, cache size, etc etc. improvements, plus 6 cores and 3.3x core clock..

It should be equivalent to a 150Ghz Pentium 4, in terms of performance.

I'd say Moore's Law is being proven correct.
First of all, there is no such thing as a 1GHz Pentium 4. :slap: Unless you downclock it. :ohwell:
Second, clock-by-clock comparison, with a difference of generations that big, is a dumb thing to do in terms of application performance. Of course there will be a huge difference, but it only makes sense to compare it with same generation processors. It makes much more sense to compare processing performance using a standard benchmark to evaluate a single unit of measurement. LINPACK/LAPACK are good methods. It will still show a huge difference, but it's a measurement.
except that no one knows how to write code that is optimized to profeciently use the cores to perform at anywhere near that combined level of performance
Since a 19.8GHz processor doesn't exist (with x86 architecture) we can only guess. But there are programs written for multi-core processors.
intel more fail than meets the eye.
You're becoming an annoying fanboi as each day goes by.
my crappy i3 (from beginning of 2010) is 15x faster than processors the had in 2000 (~PIII 1GHz) and more than 6x faster in single core perfrormance. Intels 10GHz figure is because they had high hopes for NetBurst and it is understandable because they were able to double clock speed with this arch.
That doesn't make sense. Off the top of head assumption is off the top of head.
They can be faster overall to complete a task, but that's related to more stuff (architecture, cache, RAM-CPU bus speed, NB improvements) rather than just clock speed. I think even single core performance is higher than only six times that of a Pentium 3 at 1GHz. Like all manufacturers, high hopes for a new product is a completely normal behavior.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
68 (0.02/day)
Likes
12
#15

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
20,902 (6.25/day)
Likes
9,994
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2015
Processor Intel Core i7-6700K (4 x 4.00 GHz) w/ HT and Turbo on
Motherboard MSI Z170A GAMING M7
Cooling Scythe Kotetsu
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-2133 8 GiB
Video Card(s) PowerColor PCS+ 390 8 GiB DVI + HDMI
Storage Crucial MX300 275 GB, Seagate 6 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster T240 24" LCD (1920x1200 HDMI) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW 19" LCD (1440x900 DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek Onboard, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei RAW
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
#16
I remember stores here trying to sell HT chips and early dual-cores with that line of thought. A dual-core at 2.2GHz doesn't equal a single-core at 4.4GHz. It never worked that way.
With symmetrical multithreading, it can get pretty close (maybe a 10% overhead cost). Problem is, there aren't many workloads substantial enough to bother.