
Intel to use nanowire/nanoribbon transistors in volume ‘in five years’ - rbanffy
https://www.anandtech.com/show/15865/intel-to-use-nanowirenanoribbon-transistors-in-volume-in-five-years
======
ChuckMcM
I think it can be difficult to appreciate the problem that 'gate all around'
transistors solves. For all their "layers" semiconductor devices have been
essentially stuck in 2 dimensions[1] since the beginning of time.

This is the key point (from the article) : _One of the key benefits of these
GAA transistors is that the transistor can be specifically tailored to the
operational requirements._

Basically, in the "way back" times there was exactly one type of transistor
characterized for the whole process, so you got to use the "P" version or the
"N" version but always the same transistor. This got upgraded a bit when
companies figured out how to mix more than two (I've seen up to seven) types
of transistors in the mix so that you could have "drive" transistors for I/O,
and "internal" transistors (for logic) and "buffer" transistors that would
move clock signals further on the chip or with a sharper turn on or turn off
characteristic.

If you can create a process where the GAA transistor is parameterized _in the
process_ (by which I mean the circuit designer can say "I want this parameter
to be X, this other to by Y, and this third parameter to be Z all at frequency
Q" for each and every transistor in the part, that is _huge_. I would guess
that conservatively that adds 30% to your scaling efficiency.

Mask tweaks would be harder but at these scales I don't know that anyone is
going in and "fixing up" problems with an e-beam on die these days.

Anyway, the result is going to be some pretty amazing parts when this stuff is
integrated into the pipeline, especially mixed signal parts (some analog /
some digital) because that is an area that can really benefit from a bunch of
different transistor sizes.

[1] EDIT: Referring here to device geometry in the X and Y dimensions. While
these determine some parameters, typically such transistors were all of a very
similar size (back when the process node name like "1 micron" was equated to
the transistor feature size, unlike today where its more of a measurement of
_something_ such that the fabs can brag about how small it is)

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
When you said “2 dimensions” I assumed you were referring to the spacial
dimensions X,Y.

Reading the rest of your comment, it appears you were referring to transistor
parameters?

Edit: corrected tapographical error to _spacial_.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Excellent observation! Yes I was referring to geometric dimensions when I said
"2 dimensions" but from a device physics perspective changing those two
dimensions _also_ changes the device parameters :-) (in classic CMOS/NMOS
processes I have seen it characterized as leakage and voltage threshold)

You are correct though it was worded in a confusing way.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Ah, I see. I initially thought you were going to launch in to three
dimensional chips.

Thanks for clearing that up, makes sense now.

------
ksec
In other news, Ampere [1] expect to launch their 128 Core ARM Chip by the end
of this year.

I know nothing has really happened yet but I am already feeling a little sorry
for Intel.

[1] [https://www.anandtech.com/show/15871/amperes-product-
list-80...](https://www.anandtech.com/show/15871/amperes-product-
list-80-cores-up-to-33-ghz-at-250-w-128-core-in-q4)

~~~
trhway
couple of items which struck nicely

>Q32-17* - 32 cores and 4TiB RAM is 58W TDP, i.e. basically beefy laptop level

>4-Wide superscalar aggressive out-of-order execution

So, with the last item being the key to modern CPU performance, it isn't just
Intel, it is probably whole x86 family will feel the pinch. Add to that
Apple's move to ARM. Sounds like a promise of great times to come - i.e.
competing architectures.

------
foota
Maybe they should worry about 10nm first :)

~~~
Nokinside
That's not how the industry works.

They have always multiple technologies in different stages of development.

Intel failed one major technology node and it will hit their profits hard,but
anyone who thinks that it has any effect to their 7nm node don't know how this
works.

~~~
foota
Just some lighthearted fun poking at Intel :) They were market leader long
enough they can beat a few jokes I think.

I do wonder though whether the fact Intel failed on 10nm means they're likely
to fail on 7nm and below as a result of a failed culture? Certainly the
technology looks very different for the next node (or so I assume) and maybe
Intel just made a bad assumption/went down the wrong path that cost them many
years for 10nm, but the fact they weren't able to insulate against the risk
does seem somewhat worrying, right?

~~~
supernova87a
I'm totally unaware of the Intel-failed-at-10nm story -- is there somewhere
good to read an intro to that?

~~~
foota
This talks about it some: [https://www.extremetech.com/computing/295159-intel-
acknowled...](https://www.extremetech.com/computing/295159-intel-acknowledges-
its-long-10nm-delay-caused-by-being-too-aggressive). I hadn't read it but this
article seems to talk about it as well:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/technology/intel-
culture-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/technology/intel-culture-
robert-swan.html).

------
lachlan-sneff
I wonder if advancements in semiconductor manufacturering will eventually help
bootstrap molecular nanotechnology.

------
lemoncucumber
Excited to see this in ten years.

------
glouwbug
You think this is a knee jerk reaction to Apple's ARM line announcement and
Japan's TOP500 ARM headlines?

~~~
kasperni
Doubt it, to quote Jim Keller "We’re all building nanowires in the fab. Intel,
TSMC, Samsung, everybody’s working on it."

~~~
lawrenceyan
It seems like there was plenty to still work on then. What's up with Jim
Keller's abrupt resignation? [https://www.anandtech.com/show/15846/jim-keller-
resigns-from...](https://www.anandtech.com/show/15846/jim-keller-resigns-from-
intel-effective-immediately)

~~~
craftinator
I was wondering about his resignation as well. He does have a history of
showing up, pushing the technology bounds, optimizing the fab and design
processes, then moving on to do it again. Maybe he just hit his benchmarks for
work completed and wanted a new challenge.

~~~
IanCutress
He left due to a close family illness.

------
fizixer
> ... 'In Five Years'

So what does Intel want us to do today, make a circle around a bonfire and
sing praises?

------
bluedays
Seems like too little, way too late. In five years we're going to see an
entirely different landscape in regards to the popularity of arm processors.

