8 Jul
2026
8 Jul
'26
5:41 p.m.
We can stand in awe as classic computerists at the advancement of
technology: I recently read that chip technology size is at 2 nanometers
for ultra-large scale processors. In 1971 it was 10,000 nanometers or 10
microns. This is a 5000x reduction in size in 55 years. One has to ask: Is
Moore’s Law still alive?
Happy computing?
Murray :-)
7:54 p.m.
On 2026-07-08 6:41 p.m., Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
We can stand in awe as classic computerists at the
advancement of
technology: I recently read that chip technology size is at 2 nanometers
for ultra-large scale processors. In 1971 it was 10,000 nanometers or 10
microns. This is a 5000x reduction in size in 55 years. One has to ask: Is
Moore’s Law still alive?
Happy computing?
Murray :-)
In 1965 you had a IBM 1130 in a desk.
In 1970 you had a 4040 in a 16 pin dip on a little card.
In 1975 you had a 8080 in a 40 pin dip in a little box.
In 1980 you had a 6502 in a little Apple II case on a desk.
In 1985 you had a PC in a computer desk.
In 1990 you has a PC in bigger computer desk with wall warts
like for modems.
... After that I lost track of the mess with the need for newer I/O
and USB.
9 Jul
9 Jul
8:08 a.m.
The current scaling numbers are in many ways marketing numbers rather than a reflection
of the geometric realities of earlier decades. Early on a single geometry increment would
apply more or less to most of the chip. That's no longer true. So to the extent that
2 nm geometry appears at all, it's only in one or a few layers, with most layers
having significantly larger geometry.
Nevertheless, those numbers are still mindboggling. Especially when you consider the
machine (the EUV stepper) that has to project those patterns at that resolution onto the
wafer, at high speed. The fact that it's possible at all is just amazing; the fact
that only one company in the world is capable of doing it isn't much of a surprise.
I saw a video about that technology which said that it's analogous to shooting at a
dime on the moon, from earth, and asking "which side of the dime do you want me to
hit?" I think that's a slight exaggeration, but hitting WIlilam Tell's apple
on the moon, from earth, seems accurate enough. Yowza.
The big problem at those tiny geometries is that devices are small enough that quantum
mechanics is a major source of trouble. For example, insulators that small aren't
really insulators.
paul
On Jul 8, 2026, at 8:41 PM, Murray McCullough via
cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
We can stand in awe as classic computerists at the advancement of
technology: I recently read that chip technology size is at 2 nanometers
for ultra-large scale processors. In 1971 it was 10,000 nanometers or 10
microns. This is a 5000x reduction in size in 55 years. One has to ask: Is
Moore’s Law still alive?
Happy computing?
Murray :-)
6:20 p.m.
I quite agree as marketing gets in the way of making sense of the truly
teeny-tiny. Because of quantum mechanics maybe Moore’s Law is defunct if
only applied to a few layers. True 3D production may be the answer but with
today’s technology this may not be possible. Yet the answer could be
stacking chips in a true 3D fashion while employing the very latest in
cooling technology.
Happy computing.
Murray 🙂
On Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 11:08 AM Paul Koning via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
The current scaling numbers are in many ways
marketing numbers rather
than a reflection of the geometric realities of earlier decades. Early on
a single geometry increment would apply more or less to most of the chip.
That's no longer true. So to the extent that 2 nm geometry appears at all,
it's only in one or a few layers, with most layers having significantly
larger geometry.
Nevertheless, those numbers are still mindboggling. Especially when you
consider the machine (the EUV stepper) that has to project those patterns
at that resolution onto the wafer, at high speed. The fact that it's
possible at all is just amazing; the fact that only one company in the
world is capable of doing it isn't much of a surprise.
I saw a video about that technology which said that it's analogous to
shooting at a dime on the moon, from earth, and asking "which side of the
dime do you want me to hit?" I think that's a slight exaggeration, but
hitting WIlilam Tell's apple on the moon, from earth, seems accurate
enough. Yowza.
The big problem at those tiny geometries is that devices are small enough
that quantum mechanics is a major source of trouble. For example,
insulators that small aren't really insulators.
paul
On Jul 8, 2026, at 8:41 PM, Murray McCullough via
cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
We can stand in awe as classic computerists at the advancement of
technology: I recently read that chip technology size is at 2 nanometers
for ultra-large scale processors. In 1971 it was 10,000 nanometers or 10
microns. This is a 5000x reduction in size in 55 years. One has to ask:
Is
Moore’s Law still alive?
Happy computing?
Murray :-)
7:06 p.m.
On Thu, 2026-07-09 at 21:20 -0400, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
I quite agree as marketing gets in the way of making
sense of the
truly
teeny-tiny. Because of quantum mechanics maybe Moore’s Law is defunct
if
only applied to a few layers. True 3D production may be the answer
but with
today’s technology this may not be possible. Yet the answer could be
stacking chips in a true 3D fashion while employing the very latest
in
cooling technology.
Caltech Magazine just announced they have developed a photonic chip
with picosecond switching time.
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/steering-light-in-a-flash-new-chip-redir…
3D stacking with intercooling was a thing about forty years ago. I
remember stories about stacking a bigger cache on a 486 or the first
pentium by putting contact pads on the top and bottom.
Happy computing.
Murray 🙂
On Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 11:08 AM Paul Koning via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
> The current scaling numbers are in many ways marketing numbers
> rather
> than a reflection of the geometric realities of earlier decades.
> Early on
> a single geometry increment would apply more or less to most of the
> chip.
> That's no longer true. So to the extent that 2 nm geometry appears
> at all,
> it's only in one or a few layers, with most layers having
> significantly
> larger geometry.
>
> Nevertheless, those numbers are still mindboggling. Especially
> when you
> consider the machine (the EUV stepper) that has to project those
> patterns
> at that resolution onto the wafer, at high speed. The fact that
> it's
> possible at all is just amazing; the fact that only one company in
> the
> world is capable of doing it isn't much of a surprise.
>
> I saw a video about that technology which said that it's analogous
> to
> shooting at a dime on the moon, from earth, and asking "which side
> of the
> dime do you want me to hit?" I think that's a slight exaggeration,
> but
> hitting WIlilam Tell's apple on the moon, from earth, seems
> accurate
> enough. Yowza.
>
> The big problem at those tiny geometries is that devices are small
> enough
> that quantum mechanics is a major source of trouble. For example,
> insulators that small aren't really insulators.
>
> paul
>
> > On Jul 8, 2026, at 8:41 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk <
> cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
> >
> > We can stand in awe as classic computerists at the advancement of
> > technology: I recently read that chip technology size is at 2
> > nanometers
> > for ultra-large scale processors. In 1971 it was 10,000
> > nanometers or 10
> > microns. This is a 5000x reduction in size in 55 years. One has
> > to ask:
> Is
> > Moore’s Law still alive?
> >
> > Happy computing?
> >
> > Murray :-)
>
>
1
days inactive
2
days old
5 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
ben -
Fred Cisin -
Murray McCullough -
Paul Koning -
Van Snyder