Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:20:22 02/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 28, 2003 at 17:52:48, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On February 28, 2003 at 11:46:24, Matt Taylor wrote: > >>The newest Intel process is 90 nanometers. I remember them talking about ways > >90nm isn't in production yet. > >to >>hit 30 nanometers. They are -fast- approaching a width of 1 atom. > >30nm isn't going to happen in the next few years. And 30nm still isn't close to >the width of a single atom. IBM has demonstrated 6nm transistors. They went smaller than that if I recall. They used a tunneling electron microscope to actually build a transistor atom by atom. Of course, that was a tad labor intensive and not applicable to any known fab process. :) But it did work although I don't remember how small the actual transistor actually was. But the number "A few atoms" comes to mind. I'll try to find the reference... > >>If you have read much about Quantum computing, it is useless for many >>applications. Quantum computing is useful only for highly parallel problems. > >For many problems, parallel algorithms can be devised to replace the serial ones >that run well on today's computers. > >>Quantum computers run at ridiculously low speeds right now -- a few Hz. > >Key words being "right now". The forerunners of today's computers didn't run >any faster, and technology is accelerating. > >>Aggressive estimates are viable quantum computers in about 20 years. > >And? > >>DNA computing is likewise a parallel paradigm and does not address -many- >>problems. > >See above. > >There are plenty of other options for high-performance computing that don't >exist today. I wouldn't be surprised to see asynchronous chips being seriously >considered soon. The clock-based approach is beginning to cause lots of >problems as speed is agressively increased. IE data-flow? (Circa 1970 or so)?? :)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.