On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Tom Metro <[email protected]> wrote: > Here's an opinion piece by Andrew "bunnie" Huang (hardware lead at > Chumby, and I believe the guy I previously posted about who was building > an open hardware laptop design). > > The Death of Moore's Law Will Spur Innovation > http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/design/the-death-of-moores-law-will-spur-innovation >... > > This all sounds great for those rooting for open hardware, but all of > this flows from the starting assumption that Moore's Law will run out of > gas. The problem with that assumption, even though it is supported by > the laws of physics, is that there will be many highly motivated > organizations with deep pockets that will seek to redefine the problem.
Actually, I don't think it is that startling at all. Whether it's multi-core, VLIW, or adding more and more specialized instructions (SSE, SSE2, SSE3) to optimize particular applications; it seems that deep pockets have been attempting to redefine the problem for a long time now. This does basically nothing for legacy apps and frequently not that much for most newly written apps either. I'm aware of only two broad areas which might overcome the fast approaching limits of physics: 1. Switch from silicon to some other substance. I periodically read articles about carbon nanotubes or other alternatives. There seems a fair amount of money being poured into this and it's not yet clear that these efforts won't bear fruit. But then again maybe not. 2. Move more towards 3D features in semiconductors. Again it seems lots of money is being spent here. My impression is that it can be made to work, but it is likely to significantly increase manufacturing costs. If you REALLY need single package improvements in density this will be doable but it seems like it will be hard to justify for mass market products. Another issue which neither of you mention is the increasing cost of the plants where these chips are produced. As I understand it, even Intel finds it expensive to keep pushing for the next incremental shrink in chip technology. If integrated design/manufacturing firms become just too risky (what if a chip design is late? do you let your multi-billion dollar factory sit idle?), then I would expect to see even more contract chip manufacturing plants to appear. This may make it possible for smaller chip design firms to get access to current manufacturing technology. If that happens, the next step would be for design "building blocks" to either be made available by the chip foundries or as open designs. Smaller chip design firms will also probably find it easier to use standardized interfaces/design components as much as possible in order to reduce their cost/time to market. This seems to me to be another influence that will push the industry in the direction that Andrew Huang suggests. Bill Bogstad _______________________________________________ Hardwarehacking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/hardwarehacking
