If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Abc.net.au)   Scientists break Moore's Law by creating single atom transistor 8 years ahead of schedule   (abc.net.au) divider line 74
    More: Cool, Moore's Law, atoms, hydrogen atoms, Nature Nanotechnology, transistors, University of New South Wales, qubits, vacuum chambers  
•       •       •

6332 clicks; posted to Geek » on 20 Feb 2012 at 12:07 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



74 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-20 09:17:24 AM  
So, if, as people are saying, this is upholding Moore's Law, and these transistors can be used in ~8 years, what do we do in 10? How do you go from 1 atom transistors to 1/2 atom transistors? Or am I being unimaginative? Like there'll be some other breakthrough were a transistor that's 2 atoms can hold more than 2 different states? Or whatever the value would be as long as the number of atoms is 1 less than the number of states held, even if it's 1BB atoms and 1BB + 1 states.
 
2012-02-20 10:10:48 AM  

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: How do you go from 1 atom transistors to 1/2 atom transistors? Or am I being unimaginative?


Current CPUs are 2D.. transistors on a flat surface. The next gen will be 3D CPUs with nanotube transistors in 3-dimensional constructions. Not sure how Moore's law applies there, but that's the direction we're headed I think.
 
2012-02-20 10:13:01 AM  
You're all forgetting something:

Phase 3 is Profit!
 
2012-02-20 10:27:50 AM  

LavenderWolf: cman: Oh, and now intel might be able to break the 4Ghz stock speed

Clock speed is no longer a meaningful measure for a computer's effectiveness.


Clock speed hasn't been meaningful in a while. Years ago, my dream processor was the Intel Q6600. To me, it was like sticking 4 of my Pentium 4s on a single chip but getting even better results. Despite having 4 cores running at the same clock speed as my processor, it was 10 times faster.
 
2012-02-20 10:33:17 AM  

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: So, if, as people are saying, this is upholding Moore's Law, and these transistors can be used in ~8 years, what do we do in 10? How do you go from 1 atom transistors to 1/2 atom transistors? Or am I being unimaginative? Like there'll be some other breakthrough were a transistor that's 2 atoms can hold more than 2 different states? Or whatever the value would be as long as the number of atoms is 1 less than the number of states held, even if it's 1BB atoms and 1BB + 1 states.


Moore's "law" literally has to have an end-point. Atomically is probably it, but it could get even smaller. But we're getting nearer to the limit.
 
2012-02-20 10:35:26 AM  

Tobin_Lam: LavenderWolf: cman: Oh, and now intel might be able to break the 4Ghz stock speed

Clock speed is no longer a meaningful measure for a computer's effectiveness.

Clock speed hasn't been meaningful in a while. Years ago, my dream processor was the Intel Q6600. To me, it was like sticking 4 of my Pentium 4s on a single chip but getting even better results. Despite having 4 cores running at the same clock speed as my processor, it was 10 times faster.


Hell, I can just demonstrate it from my last 3 PCs.

The first one I bought myself was a P4 3.2GHz. My second was a 2.8GHz (I think) Core 2. My current clock speed is just 2.6GHz. And yet each time I increased my computer's capabilities many fold.
 
2012-02-20 10:39:59 AM  

DarnoKonrad: LavenderWolf: Regardless of what business you think Apple is in, their hardware is ludicrously overpriced.

They flat out don't sell hardware. They sell an interface that's tied to their hardware. If you don't want the interface, you'd never go to Apple to begin with. That's why it's not comparable. It's a package deal. If someone wants to say their interface is not worth the premium, that's their opinion -- but that's what they're selling, not 'apple brand' hard-drives.

And while people are loath to admit it sometimes, Apple's interface has always been a couple steps ahead of the competition. That's what you're paying for.


That is the most ridiculous doublespeak I've ever heard.

Apple sells Apple brand computers. When someone buys a mac, they're not "buying the Apple interface" they're buying a computer. And the computers they sell are ludicrously overpriced for the components inside, which are nothing special to begin with. Further, the computers are hobbled either by an operating system which supports about a tenth of the software, or having to boot into another operating system and entirely losing the "couple steps ahead" Apple OS while doing so.

I have no problem with people buying Apple if that's what they want, but to say it's not overpriced is stupid beyond measure.
 
2012-02-20 11:11:26 AM  

LavenderWolf: When someone buys a mac, they're not "buying the Apple interface" they're buying a computer.


*facepalm* Whatever guy. When you buy an Apple, you're buying hardware that's specifically designed to run the Apple OS interface. That's what you're paying for. Not the farking hardware. If you run their OS or software on any other hardware, you're breaking their licensing agreement. If you just want hardware, you don't buy it from Apple, because that's not what they sell.
 
2012-02-20 11:26:15 AM  

LavenderWolf: When someone buys a mac, they're not "buying the Apple interface" they're buying a computer.


TL;DR DEEEERRRRRRRRPPPPPPPPPPP
 
2012-02-20 11:59:49 AM  
2x 4GB PC3 10666 Ram chips for the PC... $43-$38
(new window)

2x 4GB PC3 10666 Ram chips for the MAC... $400
(new window)

They stopped being specifically designed for the MAC OS when they stopped using Power PC based machines, PCs and MACs are all x86 now...

Wonderful OS, Overpriced hardware.
 
2012-02-20 12:27:54 PM  

Gonz: SomeAmerican: Not in 1982 he wasn't. In 1982, your typical choices were:

The original IBC PC with a Intel 8088 (16 bit, ~ 1/2 MHz), 16 K of RAM, one floppy drive & no hard-drive, running PC-DOS, for $2,945.

An Apple II Plus with a MOS 6052 (8 bit, ~ 1 MHz), 16 K of RAM, one floppy drive & no hard-drive, running Apple DOS, for $1,195.

At the time, Apple's computer was clearly the better choice for home users.

Unless you were actually a home user in 1982, in which case you would have either had a Texas Instruments TI-994A, or a Commodore VIC-20. The Commodore sold for about $300, I forget the price tag on the TI.


Well, speaking from the perspective of a home computer user in 1982, there was a clear difference in my mind at the time between enthusiast computers and personal computers.

PCs were what you used to get things done. Like my dad's IBM PC XT that his work bought for him, or my neigbor's Apple IIe. They were more expensive, but meant for serious use. They competed with mainframes; a PC meant one less person on the mainframe using CPU cycles.

Enthusiast compturs were what you played around on if you weren't too serious about it, or gave your engineering minded kids. Like my TI-99, which I used to program games on. They were cheap, but had no staying power. They competed with home arcade units.

At the end of the day, the most important difference between the two wasn't the hardware but the software that was available for the platform. That's how I remember it, anyway.

But getting back to Apple, you have to understand that the mac made Apple into a different company. Pre mac they were serious PCs, and cheaper than IBM. Post mac they could charge a premium due to their graphical UI, but lost a lot of business users as it took a long time for programmers to port their command line driven business software to a graphical UI.
 
2012-02-20 12:46:18 PM  
When are memristors going to be widely and cheaply commercially available?
 
2012-02-20 12:58:08 PM  

DarnoKonrad: LavenderWolf: When someone buys a mac, they're not "buying the Apple interface" they're buying a computer.

*facepalm* Whatever guy. When you buy an Apple, you're buying hardware that's specifically designed to run the Apple OS interface. That's what you're paying for. Not the farking hardware. If you run their OS or software on any other hardware, you're breaking their licensing agreement. If you just want hardware, you don't buy it from Apple, because that's not what they sell.


Superjew: LavenderWolf: When someone buys a mac, they're not "buying the Apple interface" they're buying a computer.

TL;DR DEEEERRRRRRRRPPPPPPPPPPP


You are both either dumb, fanboys, or paid shills. Take your pick.

"I just got a new laptop!"
"What kind?"
"Macbook Air"
"Sweet"

"I just got a new desktop computer!"
"What kind?"
"Mac Pro"
"Neat!"

"I just bought into Apple's interface!"
"The fark are you smoking? Speak English."
 
2012-02-20 03:13:47 PM  

DarnoKonrad:

I don't even own any Apple products, but I've got enough sense to realize Apple is more than a hardware vender. So no, he's not right, and neither are you.


They're a consumer electronics company. A touch broader than "hardware vendor." They put a lot of work into their operating systems and user interfaces for their consumer electronics.
 
2012-02-20 03:36:02 PM  
That's cool and all, but why haven't these guys isolated the DNA to grow a human brain?
 
2012-02-20 04:21:45 PM  
Apple = overpriced garbage.

Buy a pc or install linux, and stop pretending that Steve Jobs is a saint.
 
2012-02-20 04:32:16 PM  

Cyno01: cman: Oh, and now intel might be able to break the 4Ghz stock speed

fark that shiat, more cores!


can`t we have both?
 
2012-02-20 04:56:41 PM  
As someone that's currently helping manufacture Ivy Bridge, I got a kick out of some of these replies.

/Please buy Ivy Bridge chips
//It'll help my three bonuses!
 
2012-02-20 07:02:46 PM  

bingethinker: SN1987a goes boom

Unless it was an Apple, then it would still cost $1000 more than it needs to.

Go do your homework, junior, the adults are talking here.


Why don't you take Steve Jobs decaying dick out of your ass.
 
2012-02-20 09:30:27 PM  

This About That: That's cool and all, but why haven't these guys isolated the DNA to grow a human brain?


Because the human brain, while good in its current application, would be woefully inadequate for modern computing purposes.

Unless we radically rethink computing.
 
2012-02-20 09:31:25 PM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: erik-k: And no, Joe Average is not going to install liquid cooling until it's maintainence-free for life the same way we expect every other piece of computer hardware to be.

Joe Average doesn't install his own computer components. He buys a Dell and throws it out when it meets its planned obsolescence in 3-5 years and buys another Dell.

For those who do install their own components (Joe Above-Average), all-in-one coolers like the Corsair H80 are brilliant, and yes, maintenance-free (and much smaller than the giganormous air-cooled sinks you see these days).


Hmm. I was under the impression that they haven't yet managed to produce a single-metal water cooler, and that until they do the accumulation of ionic nasties fouling the water requires replacement of the coolant at some point or another.

I've also read of a very interesting development at Sandia, where they seem to have at least significantly dented the boundary-layer problem without sounding like a tornado. In principle this is also applicable to any heatsink that rejects to air (industrial sinks, your AC, nuclear cooling towers), not just CPU fans - hello, reduced power usage across the board.
 
2012-02-20 10:49:04 PM  

LavenderWolf: radically rethink computing


Or define another paradigm, or application space, or modus operandi, or something for computing. It need not render the Von Neumann model obsolete. In fact the two could be wired together, then, finally, take over the world.
 
2012-02-21 12:57:33 AM  

the_geek: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: How do you go from 1 atom transistors to 1/2 atom transistors? Or am I being unimaginative?

Current CPUs are 2D.. transistors on a flat surface. The next gen will be 3D CPUs with nanotube transistors in 3-dimensional constructions. Not sure how Moore's law applies there, but that's the direction we're headed I think.


Unless a way can be found to transfer the heat out and away from the between layers you won't gain any efficiencies. Best thing I can think of is diamond coating with CO2 and lasers.

see Chemical Vapor Deposition
 
2012-02-21 10:23:18 AM  

LavenderWolf: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: So, if, as people are saying, this is upholding Moore's Law, and these transistors can be used in ~8 years, what do we do in 10? How do you go from 1 atom transistors to 1/2 atom transistors? Or am I being unimaginative? Like there'll be some other breakthrough were a transistor that's 2 atoms can hold more than 2 different states? Or whatever the value would be as long as the number of atoms is 1 less than the number of states held, even if it's 1BB atoms and 1BB + 1 states.

Moore's "law" literally has to have an end-point. Atomically is probably it, but it could get even smaller. But we're getting nearer to the limit.


This discounts both 3 dimensional computing and biocomputing. You lack imagination.
 
Displayed 24 of 74 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report