Forget 3D, Purdue Scientists Have a 4D Transistor
Following trigate, or 3D transistors, there could be 4D transistors. But don't get excited just yet.
Researchers at Purdue University said that they succeeded in replacing silicon in transistors and create a path to much smaller chip structures. Instead of silicon, the team at Purdue used indium-gallium-arsenide that could become a critical material for the production of semiconductors below 10 nm. A prototype built at Purdue has been made in a 20 nm process.
According to Peide Ye, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at Purdue, three indium-gallium-arsenide wires were stacked on top of each other, while being progressively shorter to the top. Including the tapered cross section, the structures resembles the shape of a Christmas tree. So, why would we call this a 4D transistor? Here is the explanation in Peide's words:
"A one-story house can hold so many people, but more floors, more people, and it's the same thing with transistors," Ye said. "Stacking them results in more current and much faster operation for high-speed computing. This adds a whole new dimension, so I call them 4D." Curb your enthusiasm. No time travel yet.
However, indium-gallium-arsenide is, in fact, an interesting material to scale chip structures and, as Peide points out, silicon may run into physical limits in the 10 nm neighborhood. Whether that will be the case or not, we know that there are solutions that will keep Moore's Law alive for some time.

Does Purdue include a large marketing component in its engineering degrees? This sort of fluff normally comes from the PR squad, not the engineers.
I'm imagining a time when Intel will just have to resort to subsequent "Tock's" until smaller process transistors become available.
Anyway, very interesting stuff! The reason behind calling them "4D" seems pretty cheesy to me... They should just call them "Stacked Transistor Technology" or something. Sounds cool to me... Actually, knowing how the tech works and what it's capable of are good enough to make it cool.
Its using indium-gallium-arsenide as the material is sort of a different thing on it's own compared to the way they made the transistors right?
if they still researching now that means they still have no idea what and how is reliability of the material on a commercial product.(dont get me start asking if ever the new material CPU could last 5-6yrs or not).
After we seen all the early SSD adopters are facing, u cant blame me skeptical on new technology. I'll be getting broadwell-E, the last of its kind base on a proven >40yrs old silicon technology that rig is likely to hold out for at least 7yrs b4 become outdated.
Does Purdue include a large marketing component in its engineering degrees? This sort of fluff normally comes from the PR squad, not the engineers.
Graphene since late 2008.
And those 2 materials would be far better for this purpose.
Synthetic diamonds also could have been used for production of displays in 1996.
Oh but wait... nevermind the premise that we can create these superior synthetic materials in abundance... the 'market' works by using 'cheap' and 'cost efficient' materials (not what is technologically more efficient/better) and then they release the least efficient product first, followed by revisions in the upcoming years for the purpose of profits.
I detest Capitalism... it doesn't promote innovation or gives us the best of what technology is capable of (in a sustainable capacity).
Academics love talking them selves up; self marketing is something they excel at. 4d, bah, way to piss the physicists off.
How about C H O C O La Te based wafer?
When you increase the DENSITY of transistors you always run into heat dissipation problems. This sounds essentially no different from simply stacking chips.
I remember for stacking chips they said "oh, we transfer the heat out the SIDE to solve that problem. Uh, really? Heat dissipation requires SQUARE AREA.
PC GAMERS realized this issue with the new Intel CPU's (eg. i5-3570K). It could not achieve the same high-end frequency (i.e. 5GHz) as its predecessor. (This caused much confusion, as people said it "sucked" when in fact it used less power and offered more performance at the same frequency).
I'm all for advances in technology but they have to pass the basic tests:
- heat dissipation
- manufacturing costs
Am I the only one who subconsciously slipped into a Pirate voice after reading that line?
if they still researching now that means they still have no idea what and how is reliability of the material on a commercial product.(dont get me start asking if ever the new material CPU could last 5-6yrs or not).
After we seen all the early SSD adopters are facing, u cant blame me skeptical on new technology. I'll be getting broadwell-E, the last of its kind base on a proven >40yrs old silicon technology that rig is likely to hold out for at least 7yrs b4 become outdated.
What I was getting at is that hopefully, Broadwell-E (if ever it's made) would hold out in terms of performance for you. I doubt though that it would become "too slow" anytime soon after its theoretical release.
Graphene since late 2008.
And those 2 materials would be far better for this purpose.
Synthetic diamonds also could have been used for production of displays in 1996.
Oh but wait... nevermind the premise that we can create these superior synthetic materials in abundance... the 'market' works by using 'cheap' and 'cost efficient' materials (not what is technologically more efficient/better) and then they release the least efficient product first, followed by revisions in the upcoming years for the purpose of profits.
I detest Capitalism... it doesn't promote innovation or gives us the best of what technology is capable of (in a sustainable capacity).
When you increase the DENSITY of transistors you always run into heat dissipation problems. This sounds essentially no different from simply stacking chips.
I remember for stacking chips they said "oh, we transfer the heat out the SIDE to solve that problem. Uh, really? Heat dissipation requires SQUARE AREA.
PC GAMERS realized this issue with the new Intel CPU's (eg. i5-3570K). It could not achieve the same high-end frequency (i.e. 5GHz) as its predecessor. (This caused much confusion, as people said it "sucked" when in fact it used less power and offered more performance at the same frequency).
I'm all for advances in technology but they have to pass the basic tests:
- heat dissipation
- manufacturing costs
They mean 4d as in it goes in 4 directions. Not that there is a w, x, y, and z direction. Haven't you ever seen a 6-way intersection? You could call that 6d if you wanted.
That second hasn't happened yet, future boy.
- Dr. Emmett Brown
Dimensions and directions are different things, but we can overlook that in order to make it sound flashy.