Smaller isn't always better

[bigshotceo]

Here's something I've always wondered about computer hardware. Since PCs were developed, hardware manufacturers have focused on making PCs smaller, more compact, etc... Unfortunately, this means that the technology is more expensive. My question is, why can't they make larger (and therefore cheaper) parts? While in some cases (laptops, desktops for cubicles) I can see that compactness is a necessity, but in other situations, is it really needed? I personally would be willing to use a computer tower 2 or 3 times the original size as long if it was 50% less expensive...

[gmatov]

They have to make them smaller to get the signals to devices in time. When you are talking 3 billion on/offs per second, there is not enough time to send to a card that is too far away.

Electricity flows at a finite speed, and the further it has to go, the slower, resistance, etc.

It's why L1, L2 cache is faster than even your 3200 RAM. You don't have to fetch it from 6 inches away, it's on die, right there, your money's in your pocket, not back home on the dresser.

Cheers,

George

[The village idiot]

They have to make them smaller to get the signals to devices in time. When you are talking 3 billion on/offs per second, there is not enough time to send to a card that is too far away.

Electricity flows at a finite speed, and the further it has to go, the slower, resistance, etc.

It's why L1, L2 cache is faster than even your 3200 RAM. You don't have to fetch it from 6 inches away, it's on die, right there, your money's in your pocket, not back home on the dresser.

Cheers,

George

That's also why they are making the chip dies smaller, so there is less transit time for the signals. Also because the shorter the path, the less resistance. The less resistance the less power needed. Less power means less heat. Less heat means smaller fans and smaller powersupply. Smaller fans/PS means smaller box. OK, so the last few aren't really that important, but the trasit time and power requirements are 2 really big reasons to make them smaller.

[gmatov]

Amen.

Die size also translates into more dies per wafer, hence greater yield, hence more profit, but I will be damned if I would like to connect 900 wires to a piece of silicon that small

CPUs have some 50 million transistors, today. Top video chips have 150 million. (Don't ask me why they have more, they must be more powerful than the fastest CPU, but they're dedicated.)

And it's like an activated carbon filter in a cigarette, a tiny amount can be the equivalent of a football field in actual area because of the convolutions.

A CPU might have 50 miles of internal circuitry from Transistor 1 to Transistor 50 million. ( These numbers are off the top of my head. I may be way off , but you do get the idea. )

The CPU people had a meeting at which they read a paper stating that the CPU of today was approachin the energy density of a nuclear reactor. If you consider the typical die is about 7/16 by 9/16, and consimes and must dissipate the heat from about 70 watts of electricity, wow, that's hot. And your best cooling efforts may be too little.

Hey, I like a big case. I have 4 HDDS and 3 Opticals in the one I am sitting before as I type. Problem is it only has 3 3.5 drive bays and a floppy in one so 2 are on the floor of the case. 4 5 1/4 inch bays, 3 of which have opticals, but the 4th is too far up to stretch an IDE cable to reach. Next box will have 6 or 8 3 1/2 bays.

PS is 450 Antec, so not worried there.

Man, I really hate the micro ATX. I had one you had to pull the PSU to install RAM and the CPU. That's the box, not the board.

Cheers,

George

[Solarjetman]

Since PCs were developed, hardware manufacturers have focused on making PCs smaller, more compact, etc... Unfortunately, this means that the technology is more expensive.

Actually, that is not true. Other than the captial needed to buy the machine to create them, it costs the exact same to produce a wafer of 50 chips as it does to produse a wafer of 100. So, if you were able to produce twice the number of chips, each individual chip would cost half.

Look at laptops just a few years ago. You could spend $3500 for a top of the line. Now the top of the line is around $2500 and is faster than the 3.5k one. Throw inflation into the mix and you get an even greater savings (remember the $3000 computers of the 80's?, that would be the equivelent of ~$4500 today)

The smaller die size means more per wafer and a smaller cost per chip.

[Ducatti20]

[/quote]

Actually, that is not true. Other than the captial needed to buy the machine to create them, it costs the exact same to produce a wafer of 50 chips as it does to produse a wafer of 100. So, if you were able to produce twice the number of chips, each individual chip would cost half.

Look at laptops just a few years ago. You could spend $3500 for a top of the line. Now the top of the line is around $2500 and is faster than the 3.5k one. Throw inflation into the mix and you get an even greater savings (remember the $3000 computers of the 80's?, that would be the equivelent of ~$4500 today)

The smaller die size means more per wafer and a smaller cost per chip.[/quote]
Just to back that up.. I work in the semiconductor industry, and my customer went from making a particular chip on 12 inch wafers in the .35um size to a smaller version (.27um) and their profits have almost doubled per wafer.

[indolikaa]

Just to back that up.. I work in the semiconductor industry,

Hmmm... TI. Can't be AMD 'cause they have a policy of having their employees executed if they admit their allegiance publically.

[gmatov]

Imdoliika,

Listen, smart ass, it is "publicly". Start spelling a little better. Your's are some of the most entertaining, thus most read, spell right. Too many here who screw up to and too.

Cheers,
George

[Ducatti20]

Just to back that up.. I work in the semiconductor industry,

Hmmm... TI. Can't be AMD 'cause they have a policy of having their employees executed if they admit their allegiance publically.

Actually, I'm a vendor so my allegiance is to whoever is buying equipment this week...

[indolikaa]

Imdoliika,

Listen, smart ass, it is "publicly". Start spelling a little better. Your's are some of the most entertaining, thus most read, spell right. Too many here who screw up to and too.

Cheers,
George

What, you've never heard Texas drawl before?

I-N-D-O-L-I-K-A-A

[gmatov]

Imdoliika,

Listen, smart ass, it is "publicly". Start spelling a little better. Your's are some of the most entertaining, thus most read, spell right. Too many here who screw up to and too.

Cheers,
George

What, you've never heard Texas drawl before?

I-N-D-O-L-I-K-A-A

And I always remind myself to hit double i.

[indolikaa]

You're too funny, George. :P