Moore's Law limit hit by 2014?
Moore's Law may lapse by 2014, according to iSuppli. The high cost of chip manufacturing--not just the impossibly smaller geometries--may be the biggest threat.
Gordon Moore, former chairman and CEO of Intel
(Credit: Intel)Moore's Law, named after Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, states that the number of transistors that can be placed on an integrated circuit doubles roughly every two years. For more than four decades, chip geometries have gotten smaller and smaller, allowing Moore's Law to remain on track.
By 2014, however, the high cost of semiconductor manufacturing equipment will threaten Moore's Law, "altering the fundamental economics of the industry," according to a report released on Tuesday by iSuppli.
"The usable limit for semiconductor process technology will be reached when chip process geometries shrink to be smaller than 20 nanometers (nm), to 18nm nodes," said Len Jelinek, director and chief analyst, semiconductor manufacturing, for iSuppli. "At those nodes (levels), the industry will start getting to the point where semiconductor manufacturing tools are too expensive to depreciate with volume production, i.e., their costs will be so high, that the value of their lifetime productivity can never justify it."
While further advances in shrinking process geometries can be achieved after the 20-nanometer to 18-nanometer level, Moore's Law will no longer drive volume semiconductor production, iSuppli said.
As a yardstick, Intel is currently in the process of moving to a 32-nanometer manufacturing process. While Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC)--the world's largest contract chip manufacturer--has moved to 40-nanometer for chips it makes for companies such as Nvidia.
There are examples of companies that have already found chipmaking prohibitively expensive. Facing possible bankruptcy, Advanced Micro Devices eventually spun off its chipmaking operations. Some Asia-based memory chipmakers have also faced possible extinction because they couldn't invest the staggering sums of money necessary to update production facilities.
The end of Moore's Law has been prophesied more than a few times in the past but chip equipment cost isn't the only thing conspiring against the law. Exponential growth in every industry eventually has to come to an end, according to an April EE Times report quoting IBM Fellow Carl Anderson. He cited railroads and speed increases in the aircraft industry as examples where exponential growth eventually petered out.
"A generation or two of continued exponential growth will likely continue only for leading-edge chips such as multicore microprocessors, but more designers are finding that everyday applications do not require the latest physical designs," Anderson said in the EE Times' report.
Until 2014, however, the race continues. Globalfoundries, the joint company owned by AMD and Abu Dhabi-based Mubadala Development, said Tuesday that "the semiconductor industry is celebrated for overcoming seemingly insurmountable odds to continue the trend toward smaller, faster, and more energy-efficient products" and, in partnership with IBM, announced research that will enable the continued scaling of semiconductor components to the 22-nanometer level and beyond.
And Intel on Thursday will show off new research that will demonstrate the company's latest advancements with its chip manufacturing technology.
Brooke Crothers has been an editor at large at CNET News, an analyst at IDC Japan, and an editor at The Asian Wall Street Journal Weekly, among other endeavors, including co-manager of an after-school math-and-reading center. He writes for the CNET Blog Network and is not a current employee of CNET. Disclosure. 




This would force programmers to write more efficient code!
"The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year ... Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase. Over the longer term, the rate of increase is a bit more uncertain, although there is no reason to believe it will not remain nearly constant for at least 10 years. That means by 1975, the number of components per integrated circuit for minimum cost will be 65,000. I believe that such a large circuit can be built on a single wafer."
But if the trend slows-down, having a computer for many years would make sense. Software could catch-up to the hardware and improved. Hardware crafting would improve. People could have computers for years.
But with quatum computers, will probably start this trend again. When data can be store at the atomic level, you only limit is the number of atoms you can fit and contol in a chip. Who knows, in future I suspect they will even figure out how to store information in black holes (the mini-ones that are about the size of an atom). Or some other great innovation.
Who knows, in future I suspect they will even figure out how to store information in black holes (the mini-ones that are about the size of an atom).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh great, so when that virus hits your new fista box it brings about the end of the world.
LOL - just kidding, of course. ;-)
Think of it this way. If you have to spend $80M on a device and you can make $5 on each one of them (easy for intel, very difficult in the mobile phone market) you have to sell 16M pieces over the life of the part. Given the pace of innovation, that is at most 2 years. And just how many design wins are there out there that give 16M pieces?
That said, the last time we faced this obstacle, it was the cost of bringing a fab on line when everyone owned their own. No one could justify the $B investements. The result: an entire new "fab" industry was born that amortizes those costs over numerous designs. The question now is: will someone come up with a way to turn the fixed design/verification costs into a variable cost like the fab guys did?
Appreciate you putting out real cost nos. out there but they may not be applicable en-masse. You can make a $5 profit on something that cost close to that. My recent work was on imaging SoCs that would make a profit if sold at 1 $ a piece. And yes, the mobile OEMs were asking for guarantees of us providing 5M+ parts/month. So, it seems that it is not only the cost per chip or only the volume, it is the percentage profit per chip that is key.
Yes, I programmed and supervised programmers.
@gertruded:
You are probably right. Since the invention of high-level programming languages such as Java / C#, programmers no longer needed to write near-assembly efficient code. But they still are required to make their applications as fast as possible to target a larger audience for their software. Look at what happened to Windows Vista; They (MS) are now releasing an OS (Windows 7) that has requirement less or equal to Vista, after 3 years.
@sythara:
That is what we call as Productivity v.s. Efficiency - Though I guess we are getting close to the point to have both together.
What if processors aren't fast enough 20 years from now to handle the software that we'll be writing for them?? FUN FACTS: the first nuclear missiles were guided with mechanical computers, since there were no useful digital ones at the time. Dangerous? you betcha. Feel safer, the faster computers get?
Then there is more efficient programming ... programers are spoiled by very fast computers and are not very efficient when programming ... Apple with it's new Snow Leopard has started to tackle efficiency on multi-core processors ... even using the graphics processor power for other computing tasks ...
"both indium and hafnium - which is increasingly important in computer chips - could be gone by 2017."
<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19426051.200-earths-natural-wealth-an-audit.html?full=true">NewScientist:Earth's natural wealth: an audit</a>
Make sure you've got a good pc in 2017, because it might be your last for a while to come. (And make sure you can run it on solar power as well! : )
- by sagron June 22, 2009 6:44 AM PDT
- There are several technologies upcoming that hold promise... quantum computing has been mentioned; there's also standard light-based or laser processors, spintronics, materials like bismuth telleride, graphene, nanotech, etc. - and those are just the ones I've heard of.
- Reply to this comment
-
(35 Comments)