We can mold pretty massive chips now. Is it possible to etch storage, running memory, and processing cores in the same silicon wafer? So you have say 10GB memory, 1GB RAM and 500MHz processor on one single chip?I realize it would be retarded inefficien

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Flag
Oekaki	Show oekaki applet (replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks)
Password	(For file and post deletion.)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf Max filesize is 16 MB. Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000. You may upload 3 per post.

File (hide): 9f2a53c884742ba⋯.png (276.23 KB, 980x557, 980:557, voltablockdiagram-980x557.png) (h) (u)

▶Anonymous 02/12/18 (Mon) 18:42:33 No.867542>>867553 >>867562 >>867821 >>867905 [Watch Thread][Show All Posts]

We can mold pretty massive chips now. Is it possible to etch storage, running memory, and processing cores in the same silicon wafer? So you have say 10GB memory, 1GB RAM and 500MHz processor on one single chip?

I realize it would be retarded inefficient, just asking if its possible.

▶Anonymous 02/12/18 (Mon) 18:54:44 No.867553>>867561

>>867542 (OP)

yes. the only reason they don't do it is because microchips are products and computers are systems.

▶Anonymous 02/12/18 (Mon) 19:00:11 No.867561>>867572 >>867577 >>867579 >>867905

File (hide): 1983e74f5b80764⋯.jpg (380.09 KB, 1440x1080, 4:3, latest.jpg) (h) (u)

File (hide): 3d23550cb9dd932⋯.jpg (494.15 KB, 1000x667, 1000:667, r1_01.jpg) (h) (u)

>>867553

What's the difference between a product and a system?

I ask because then we could just mass produce those at ridiculous scales, and sell them for $25 apiece. Customers just buy a bunch of them, and carry them around in their pocket, like a pocket full of chips.

Then whenever they need to use them, they go to a terminal which has power and peripherals, and plug the chip in. Doing something intensive? Plug a few more chips in, you got a pocketfull.

Need a supercomputer? Plug in a few pocketfulls!

It also helps with upgrades, because instead of upgrading your computer for thousands of dollars immediately, you can buy a chip for cheap and test it out, and then one-by-one replace the old chips.

Terminals and peripherals sold separately for cheaper, or rented.

Even specialty chips can be sold, specializing in signals processing, encryption or 3D rendering.

I'm sorry, I'm a biologist, and economies of scale turn me on sexually.

▶Anonymous 02/12/18 (Mon) 19:01:03 No.867562>>867949

>>867542 (OP)

>Is it possible to etch storage, running memory, and processing cores in the same silicon wafer?

It is possible in theory. In reality you would have to be extra careful about way you do it due to various patents.

>I realize it would be retarded inefficient, just asking if its possible.

It would actually be more efficient than usual computers because your system would be smaller and have lower resistance. Your major problem would be getting rid of the heat.

▶Anonymous 02/12/18 (Mon) 19:10:36 No.867570

a product could be a hardware or software that, say, made your RAM faster.

a system is realizing technologies that already exist and putting them together.

look, why can't you just build your own computer on a breadboard?

▶Anonymous 02/12/18 (Mon) 19:12:41 No.867572>>867573

>>867561

> we could just mass produce those at ridiculous scales, and sell them for $25 apiece

You can do that, but you would need to have long upgrade cycles if you want to be profitable.

Manufacturing CPU literally costs pennies, but initial investment into CPU dies is in billions of dollars.

▶Anonymous 02/12/18 (Mon) 19:20:27 No.867573

>>867572

>Manufacturing CPU literally costs pennies

False

▶Anonymous 02/12/18 (Mon) 19:31:39 No.867577

>>867561

A problem with that is that processing power doesn't scale nicely. Two carriers of 10 GB of storage each are roughly as useful as one 20 GB carrier, but two 500 MHz processors are not as powerful as one 1000 MHz processor, unless you have an easily parallellizable task. To use multiple processors effectively you need to split a program into multiple parts that can run at the same time, and that's really hard.

On a more positive note, look up EOMA68. I think it's right up your alley.

▶Anonymous 02/12/18 (Mon) 19:36:34 No.867579>>867672

>>867561

Is that image on the left from the episode of Star Trek: TNG where the anomaly (or whatever other convenient plot device they were using that week) makes the crew drunk and Hwil Hwheaton takes over engineering and Data has to rearrange the chips really fast to save the ship?

▶Anonymous 02/12/18 (Mon) 22:18:19 No.867672

>>867579

Yea. Fucking good scene.

▶Anonymous 02/13/18 (Tue) 03:31:26 No.867821

File (hide): 1de1548e708c3ee⋯.jpg (144.05 KB, 960x720, 4:3, Multiple Chip Module (MCM).jpg) (h) (u)

>>867542 (OP)

In theory, yes. But processors like CPUs & GPUs benefit more from smaller fab processes than memory like RAM or flash, so (much like stuffing so much cache on-die without an off-die L3 interface IMHO) it's a waste of the newer and smaller fab capacity. MCMs where dice from different fabs are combined into a single device with the short fine-tolerance traces of a single die, however, are increasingly common.

▶Anonymous 02/13/18 (Tue) 06:23:31 No.867905>>867928

>>867542 (OP)

*slightly bends a pcb*

nothing happens

*slightly bends a solid chip*

heh, nothin personnel kid

>>867561

Stop larping. When you upgrade a PC, you also upgrade all buses. ISA to PCi to AGP and PCIe. USB 2.0 to USB 3.0 to USB 3.1 and Thunderbolt. You can stick Thunderbolt 3 controller into 2008 PC, but it won't run at full speed because an obsolete PCIe 2.0 interface is the bottleneck. So what's the point of having gazillion chips running at gazillion hertz when you only have a 100 mhz bus and 4 slots?

▶Anonymous 02/13/18 (Tue) 08:16:43 No.867928

>>867905

What's the point of having a Thunderbolt controller when the only thing on the other end is an obsolete iPod?

▶Anonymous 02/13/18 (Tue) 09:17:13 No.867949

>>867562

>. In reality you would have to be extra careful about way you do it due to various patents

But who cares about your cUckSA problems?

/tech/ - Technology★

General

WebM

Theme

User JS

Do not paste code here unless you absolutely trust the source or have read it yourself!

Favorites

Customize Formatting

Filters