Speaker 1: Brought to you by the reinvented two thousand twelve Camray.
Speaker 1: It's ready. Are you get in touch with technology? With
Speaker 1: tech Stuff from how stuff works dot com. Hello again, everyone,
Speaker 1: and welcome to tech stuff. My name is Chris Polette
Speaker 1: and I am an editor at how stuff works dot com.
Speaker 1: Sitting across from me as always a senior writer Jonathan
Speaker 1: stir Rickland. Wake up in the morning feeling like p didd.
Speaker 1: I grabbed my glasses. I'm out the door. I'm going
Speaker 1: to hit this city. I don't want to hit something too.
Speaker 1: But that's not what I'm thinking about. Yeah, I I
Speaker 1: despise the source of that. But but at the same time,
Speaker 1: it was too it was too apropos. I could not
Speaker 1: pass it up with all the the TikTok related things
Speaker 1: that you could think of. It was TikTok spoiler. So, guys,
Speaker 1: we're gonna talk today about a an interesting strategy developed
Speaker 1: by into l uh in their micro processor micro architecture
Speaker 1: design work. Right, Yeah, this is this is something that
Speaker 1: chip heads would you would you call them chip heads
Speaker 1: people who really care about the processor speed of computers.
Speaker 1: I call them processor freaks, but with a pH Okay,
Speaker 1: this is something that they would pay attention to, but
Speaker 1: probably the general public doesn't know a whole lot about
Speaker 1: because it's something that goes on somewhat behind the scenes.
Speaker 1: Although Intel doesn't really make a big secret of of
Speaker 1: doing it this way. No, No, they've got they've got
Speaker 1: plenty of information on their own website, completely open to
Speaker 1: the public that explains this, because I mean, really, it's
Speaker 1: just it's showing a process, right. It's not giving any
Speaker 1: proprietary information away, not in the least. It's kind of
Speaker 1: like saying that you know, a car manufacturing plant uses
Speaker 1: an assembly line of some sort that that tells you
Speaker 1: the process or using, but doesn't give you a need detail.
Speaker 1: True enough, So the uh, it's appropriately named the TikTok
Speaker 1: strate g because it's sort of like a pendulum. Uh.
Speaker 1: It moves one way and then the other and then
Speaker 1: back the other way. Um, but that's not really the
Speaker 1: pendulum is not really completely a good analogy because it's
Speaker 1: not just moving back and forth that the process is
Speaker 1: actually moving forward during this time. Yeah, and we can.
Speaker 1: Let's let's before we get into the actual details of
Speaker 1: what TikTok is all about, let's talk about the reason
Speaker 1: TikTok even needs to exist in the first place, and
Speaker 1: that would be from Intel's co founder Gordon Moore. Yeah. So,
Speaker 1: so Gordy, you may remember we've talked about Gordy in
Speaker 1: the past, and uh, you know somebody from Intel is
Speaker 1: listening to that. You know. Yeah, we've had we've had
Speaker 1: some important people email us in the past. Like I'm
Speaker 1: thinking of Vinton Surf who sent me an email and
Speaker 1: that just it's hard for me to remember that that
Speaker 1: important really like people I really legitimately admire and respect
Speaker 1: and who have had an enormous impact upon in the
Speaker 1: technology industries. Um, I can hear what I have to say.
Speaker 1: That just blows my mind because normally I'm just having
Speaker 1: these conversations in a room and we don't have a
Speaker 1: microphone in front of me. But anyway, Gordy, uh night.
Speaker 1: Back in NINETI wrote this paper about cramming more components
Speaker 1: into a chip. I can't remember. There's something along those
Speaker 1: lines as the title I'm paraphrasing, but I can. I
Speaker 1: can look that up for you if you want. You
Speaker 1: go ahead and look that up while I talk about
Speaker 1: about this. So we're talking about Moore's law here. So
Speaker 1: Gordon came up with this observation, and it was an observation.
Speaker 1: You've got to remember that Moore's law was not some
Speaker 1: sort of fundamental law of the universe. The observation was
Speaker 1: that over a certain period of time, and I believe
Speaker 1: initially it might have been between twelve and eighteen months,
Speaker 1: it's now closer to twenty four months, but over a
Speaker 1: certain amount of time, More observed that the number of
Speaker 1: transistors that one that a company could fit on a
Speaker 1: single square inch of so con wafer material doubled, so
Speaker 1: you could fit twice as many transistors on a chip
Speaker 1: UH within a year or two years um. And that
Speaker 1: he his observation was that this was a trend that
Speaker 1: would continue indefinitely until we started to reach some fundamental
Speaker 1: limits of how small we could make transistors. And at
Speaker 1: the time, no one was really sure you know how
Speaker 1: long that would be. And it's the crazy thing is
Speaker 1: it's held true even today. And you've got to remember,
Speaker 1: this is an exponential uh pattern, right, I mean it's
Speaker 1: it's decreasing, the sizes decreasing by half, the number is
Speaker 1: increasing bye bye, you know, twice as much each time frame,
Speaker 1: So before too long you get an incredible number of
Speaker 1: transistors on a silicon chip. The name of the paper. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And as a matter of fact, Jonathan cited this for
Speaker 1: his really awesome article on War's Law. Um a couple
Speaker 1: of years ago. Wow, that that along, are you uh called?
Speaker 1: It's actually called cramming more components onto integrated circuits. So yeah,
Speaker 1: that's pretty much right. Yeah, it was pretty close. But
Speaker 1: you can find that in Electronics. That's the name of
Speaker 1: the journal. It was April volume thirty eight, number eight.
Speaker 1: If you want to read it, and it's actually it's
Speaker 1: not a dry read. You can actually find a link
Speaker 1: to it on Intel. If you go to Intel and
Speaker 1: you start looking at Moore's law, there is a link
Speaker 1: to a PDF of this paper, and I do recommend
Speaker 1: you read it if you're interested in the original observation.
Speaker 1: One thing that I thought was really interesting was that
Speaker 1: Moore was pointing out this isn't just a technological issue.
Speaker 1: In fact, that was not the main thrust of his paper.
Speaker 1: It's it's a financial issue because one, you have to
Speaker 1: find the technology to be able to decrease the size
Speaker 1: of these transistors, but too you have to make that
Speaker 1: technology affordable enough to use for it to make sense
Speaker 1: to use it right if you if you develop the
Speaker 1: technology to create a up that has UH an incredible
Speaker 1: number of transistors on it, but it's slow, inefficient, it
Speaker 1: costs a lot of money to create each chip. You're
Speaker 1: not you don't have a good business plan because you
Speaker 1: can't sell those chips to consumers. They would be too expensive.
Speaker 1: You would never recapture those costs. So you have to
Speaker 1: be able to one develop the technology and to develop
Speaker 1: the right procedure so that the technology is efficient and
Speaker 1: you can actually make money off of it. Speaking of which, um,
Speaker 1: some people have predicted the demise of Moore's law, of
Speaker 1: course due to the physical limitations UH for years, but
Speaker 1: also due to the recent UH financial troubles the world over.
Speaker 1: People have said, well, you know, there won't be really
Speaker 1: a need to have faster, faster, faster, faster computers because
Speaker 1: people can't afford to go by them. So UM, but
Speaker 1: I haven't really seen it slow down as much as
Speaker 1: become sort of sort of zag a little bit. And
Speaker 1: that when and the past years we've had single core
Speaker 1: processors and you would see a speed a substantial speed
Speaker 1: boost over the period of a year. Um, you know
Speaker 1: it would go from one gigga hurts to one point
Speaker 1: six gigga hurts, and you know then to two point
Speaker 1: to giga hurts. Well, now we have multi core processors,
Speaker 1: and they don't seem to move as fast because you know,
Speaker 1: we're going from uh, you know, three point two to
Speaker 1: three point six gigga hurts. But then we're also doubling
Speaker 1: the number of cours on that chip, so they are
Speaker 1: getting faster. Just doesn't appear to move as fast because
Speaker 1: of the way it doesn't. At least that's that's my
Speaker 1: personal observer. Yeah, the the jumps, the jumps, an actual
Speaker 1: number of cycles per second that a processor is capable
Speaker 1: of of executing doesn't seem to be jumping at the
Speaker 1: same rate as it was, you know, ten years ago, right,
Speaker 1: But the the multi core approach has created a more
Speaker 1: efficient way to deal with computational problems, and thus ultimately
Speaker 1: you're computing power has has increased, even though the number
Speaker 1: of cycles themselves may not have jumped as high as
Speaker 1: you would have expected. And that's that's part of the
Speaker 1: whole TikTok philosophy actually, which I guess we can kind
Speaker 1: of segue into UH. Until really started to adopt this
Speaker 1: around two thousand seven. Really, was it that long ago? Yeah? Yeah,
Speaker 1: it was. Um it was right around then when they
Speaker 1: had started to develop the core technology. That was when
Speaker 1: the core technology was first starting to be uh UM introduced.
Speaker 1: And at that time, the the number of the the
Speaker 1: discreet elements on a chip, we're around the sixty nanometer scale.
Speaker 1: So we're already talking about on the nano scale, which
Speaker 1: is yeah, remember a nanometer, And I got a lot
Speaker 1: of people yelling at me for calling it a nanometer.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I get people yelling at me, no matter what,
Speaker 1: we're gonna go nanometer this time, and then all the
Speaker 1: other people can yell at me because I'm sure they
Speaker 1: were tired of being left out. So a nanometer is
Speaker 1: one billionth of a meter, so this is incredibly tiny.
Speaker 1: We're talking about on a scale where even a moat
Speaker 1: of dust on a silicon wafer will ruin an entire
Speaker 1: chip because the mode of dust dwarfs the elements that
Speaker 1: would be printed on that chip. UM. So, sixty five
Speaker 1: nanometer scale for the core technology, now that was technically
Speaker 1: a talk that meant that Intel had already developed a
Speaker 1: chip that could be at sixty five nanometers that would
Speaker 1: be the size of the transistors essentially on that chip.
Speaker 1: So the core technology was a new way of arranging
Speaker 1: those sixty five nanometer transistors in such a way that
Speaker 1: they were more efficiently used, so that they consumed less power,
Speaker 1: they had better output, there was a more streamlined flow,
Speaker 1: so that they were, in a sense an essence, a
Speaker 1: more powerful chip. Because one thing we also need to
Speaker 1: remember about Moore's law is today a lot of people
Speaker 1: in herpret it not as there are twice as many
Speaker 1: transistors now as there were two years ago, but rather
Speaker 1: the chip itself is twice as powerful as it was
Speaker 1: two years ago. This is not exactly the same thing.
Speaker 1: They're related, but you can get more power out of
Speaker 1: a chip just by realigning certain elements and making a
Speaker 1: more efficient workflow. You know, when you start talking about
Speaker 1: more power, I'm starting to get James doing in the
Speaker 1: back of my head. I'm giving her all. She's gone.
Speaker 1: Um so coming to the Jeffreys tubes in your ear.
Speaker 1: Nice Jeffreys too in your PC, trying to a squeak
Speaker 1: out that extra Now, if you guys want to know,
Speaker 1: if you guys want to know more about that, you
Speaker 1: need to read how warp speed works. We actually have
Speaker 1: it on the site. Um the so, yeah, the whole
Speaker 1: basis of tiktalk, right, we have. We've kind of danced
Speaker 1: around it. But Intel's TikTok strategy is that the TICK
Speaker 1: is figuring out a way to reduce the size of
Speaker 1: those transistors, but you bace it upon the previous UH
Speaker 1: chips micro architecture. All right. So so it's like you've
Speaker 1: got the plans for a house. Now you're going to
Speaker 1: build that same house, but you're gonna build it at
Speaker 1: half that scale. I got it, I got it. So
Speaker 1: the TALK strategy is finding out the best way to
Speaker 1: use those smaller components so that it is the most
Speaker 1: efficient effective transistor arrangement. So in that case, what you
Speaker 1: do is you look at the plans for that house
Speaker 1: that you built at half the size of the previous one,
Speaker 1: and you say, all right, I'm going to rearrange this
Speaker 1: now so that this house makes sense at this scale.
Speaker 1: It's I'm not going to change the scale. I'm just
Speaker 1: going to change the layout of the house. So what
Speaker 1: you're saying is they they create a blueprint for a
Speaker 1: chip the next UH and then the next cycle they
Speaker 1: work on making the components using that blueprint uh more efficient, right,
Speaker 1: and then and they take the efficiency that they learn
Speaker 1: on that cycle and build a new architecture on it
Speaker 1: for the next cycle. And so on one side they're
Speaker 1: working on making everything more uh you know, reducing the
Speaker 1: size of it, and the next cycle is all about
Speaker 1: the actual design of it. Right, So exactly goes size
Speaker 1: design size design. And this is, by the way, a
Speaker 1: never ending research process. It's not like you've got people
Speaker 1: researching how to reduce the size and then they stop,
Speaker 1: and then they switch to figure out how to make
Speaker 1: it more efficient. You've got teams working on both of
Speaker 1: these things simultaneously. And so um, it's interesting. You know
Speaker 1: we look back and the core technology being the talk
Speaker 1: at SS Well, the next one was the pen Ryn chip.
Speaker 1: That was that was the tick. Yeah. Now that one
Speaker 1: used the same micro architecture as the core processors, but
Speaker 1: this time they had reduced the size of the elements
Speaker 1: to the forty five nanometer scale. Now, after Pentrin came
Speaker 1: one of the chips that I wrote about, Yes, the Haleem,
Speaker 1: yes Nehalem microprocessor micro architecture. That was the next talk,
Speaker 1: and the Haleem had introduced a lot of interesting features
Speaker 1: like multi threading and and uh arranging memory in such
Speaker 1: a way so that it would uh that the various
Speaker 1: cores could share memory certain parts of memory very quickly
Speaker 1: to make it more efficient. That's what we were talking
Speaker 1: about here. They're actually rearranging the elements that are on
Speaker 1: the microprocessor chip in such a way that that the
Speaker 1: data flow is faster just because it makes more sense, right,
Speaker 1: And it doesn't necessarily it's it's it's an arrangement that
Speaker 1: would not have necessarily worked at the larger scale because
Speaker 1: you could not physically find that same configuration with the
Speaker 1: elements being larger. They had to be that size for
Speaker 1: you to be able to kind of shift them around.
Speaker 1: It's almost like one of those puzzles where you have
Speaker 1: one piece missing and you have to slow the other
Speaker 1: pieces around until you make the right picture. It's kind
Speaker 1: of like that. You know you've got you've got this
Speaker 1: certain amount of space that you are allowed to use,
Speaker 1: and you have elements of a certain size, and you
Speaker 1: have to find the right way to fit all those
Speaker 1: elements together so that it's the most efficient possible. Well,
Speaker 1: with the larger ones, you just don't have as many configurations.
Speaker 1: You don't have as much freedom because the elements themselves
Speaker 1: are bigger. You don't, you can't, you know, there's only
Speaker 1: so many configurations you can use. So after Nehalem came Westmere,
Speaker 1: and Westmere was another tick. So it was using the
Speaker 1: same micro architecture as Nehalem. But now we have gone
Speaker 1: down to the thirty two nanometer size, right, And here's
Speaker 1: where another challenge comes in, because when you get down
Speaker 1: to this size, this this nanometer scale, you're starting to
Speaker 1: encounter some pretty funky quantum physics problems, quantum mechanics problems.
Speaker 1: You're talking about electron tunneling. That would problem, that would
Speaker 1: be a big one. Yeah, because I mean, of course,
Speaker 1: and we've talked about electron tunneling before as well, so
Speaker 1: long time listeners will know what we're talking about here.
Speaker 1: Electrons have this wacky little way of apparently defying the
Speaker 1: laws of physics as we understand them. Uh. Actually it's
Speaker 1: not entirely true quantum physics. It makes perfect sense. Classic physics,
Speaker 1: it makes no sense at all. So on my scale
Speaker 1: where I you know, if I drop something, it falls
Speaker 1: and then it hits something and it stops. That makes
Speaker 1: sense to me, Right, that's the world I grew up in.
Speaker 1: If I were to drop something and it would pass
Speaker 1: through the floor beneath me without making a hole and
Speaker 1: then continue to go down, I'd say, huh, that's strange.
Speaker 1: But on the quantum world, not so much. Those wacky
Speaker 1: electrons Tuesdays at eight. Yes, so electrons, if if a
Speaker 1: barrier is thin enough, and we're talking about a couple
Speaker 1: of nanometers wide or thick, I should say if if
Speaker 1: if it's thin enough and electron can tunnel through, and
Speaker 1: that it passes through that barrier as if the barrier
Speaker 1: we're not there. It doesn't make a hole. And in
Speaker 1: a way, it almost is like it's on one side
Speaker 1: of the barrier at one moment and on the other
Speaker 1: side of the barrier the next um. But that's one
Speaker 1: of the problems. And then what Intel has found is
Speaker 1: they found that by using different materials, by by switching
Speaker 1: their transistory gates to other kinds of elements, that they
Speaker 1: were more resistant to electron tunneling. And you don't want
Speaker 1: electron tunneling, by the way, because leaking electrons means that
Speaker 1: transistor is pretty much useless. Transistors are all about governing
Speaker 1: the flow of electrons and if you can't stop them,
Speaker 1: then the transistor is always open essentially. Sorry. I think
Speaker 1: two on semiconductors, which we've discussed in the past. Two
Speaker 1: because semiconductors are uh you know, essential to running pretty
Speaker 1: much all kinds of electronics, including computers, um and it's
Speaker 1: all about controlling using certain materials to control the flow
Speaker 1: of electron So you knew, in order to have a
Speaker 1: computer processor to function as it needs to, it also
Speaker 1: it needs to be able to control when and where
Speaker 1: the electrons and the uh inside the actual transistors are going. Yes,
Speaker 1: So I mean that's it's it's crucial. And if you
Speaker 1: start having electrons going willy nilly and put it, your
Speaker 1: processor is just gonna have errors. It's not going to
Speaker 1: be able to compute things because it can't. You know,
Speaker 1: the data that's working from the operations that's performing are
Speaker 1: all going to be affected by that electron leakage. So
Speaker 1: you have to find a way to reduce that and
Speaker 1: Intel has been doing that by experimenting with different materials.
Speaker 1: So we left off at Westmere, which was the tick
Speaker 1: we talked about going down to thirty tick we talked about.
Speaker 1: It was the tick we talked about right and the
Speaker 1: next one you actually wrote about yourself again. Yeah, it
Speaker 1: turns out I write a lot about the talks. I
Speaker 1: haven't written about the ticks. But the next talk is,
Speaker 1: of course, as a time we're recording this podcast, the
Speaker 1: most recent Intel processor the sandy Bridge processor, and sandy
Speaker 1: Bridge is again it's at that thirty two nanometer scale,
Speaker 1: because remember it's going to be on the same scale
Speaker 1: as the Tick before it, but it's got a different layout.
Speaker 1: It's no longer based on the new halam Mark micro architecture.
Speaker 1: It's got its own micro architecture, which includes a section
Speaker 1: on the chip specifically dedicated to graphics processing, which that
Speaker 1: was the big thing that set it apart from its predecessors.
Speaker 1: It also has a very small bowling alley. Alright, I
Speaker 1: don't even know where you're going with that joke. I'm
Speaker 1: just gonna I was just imagining I was going with
Speaker 1: your metaphor earlier in thinking about the building. You know,
Speaker 1: it's got its own graphics processor and a bowling alley. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna I'm gonna call that on a gutter ball
Speaker 1: right now. Yes, the sandy Bridge micro architecture is is
Speaker 1: brand new as of the time we're recording this. Yes,
Speaker 1: so new that there are problems with other chips associated
Speaker 1: with sandy Bridge, not sandy Bridge itself, we should point out,
Speaker 1: but we can talk a little bit about that. It's
Speaker 1: only it's only vaguely related to what we're chatting about
Speaker 1: in this in this podcast. So the neat thing about
Speaker 1: the graphics processing, of course, is that this means that
Speaker 1: if you have a computer with a sandy Bridge processor,
Speaker 1: especially if you have one of the faster ones, because
Speaker 1: they'd come in different flavors. You know, there's some that
Speaker 1: can have there's some that have two cores and can
Speaker 1: run up to four threads of data. And then there
Speaker 1: it goes all the way up to I think four
Speaker 1: cores that can run eight threads of data. Um, it
Speaker 1: may even go higher than that. I have to look
Speaker 1: it up again. But the the you know, you get
Speaker 1: one of the faster ones and you get this graphics
Speaker 1: processing built onto the chip, it means that you may
Speaker 1: not need a dedicated graphics processing unit to add to
Speaker 1: your computer in order to play some of the more
Speaker 1: advanced video games or to do things like video editing. Um,
Speaker 1: you you might not need more additional power because you've
Speaker 1: got everything you need on that one micro chip, which
Speaker 1: is pretty fascinating. I mean, that chip is tiny, and
Speaker 1: to think that it does the the equivalent of a
Speaker 1: dedicated graphics processing card is a phenomenal. Now, granted, I'm
Speaker 1: sure there are going to be games out there that
Speaker 1: if you crank them to the highest setting, you're still
Speaker 1: gonna want your own graphics processing card because it's not
Speaker 1: it's not able to you know, take over the entire load.
Speaker 1: I had a feeling when you said that that someone
Speaker 1: will write in to to tell you that that, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, that is not the case that you're if
Speaker 1: you're going to be running a high frame rate first
Speaker 1: person shooter or you know, something with a lot of
Speaker 1: detailed games like that, uh, that you're not going to
Speaker 1: want that. And yes, we're we're aware of that. Yeah.
Speaker 1: But if you're playing you know, Crush the Castle, yeah,
Speaker 1: uh well, and and it's funny too. I was thinking
Speaker 1: about the most recent release of the Mac os ten,
Speaker 1: which as at this point was snow Leppard and uses
Speaker 1: the Grand Central technology, which sort of coopts your graphics
Speaker 1: processor if it if it isn't busy with something. Uh.
Speaker 1: So it seems like the uh operating system manufacturers and
Speaker 1: the chip manufacturers are both sort of aware, you know what,
Speaker 1: we could probably be using you know, one chip to
Speaker 1: do multiple things, and if you have multiple chips, you
Speaker 1: can have them sort of you know, pinch hit when
Speaker 1: required in other areas. So it seems to make the
Speaker 1: architecture more computer itself architecture, not the the chip architecture
Speaker 1: more flexible because that way, say you have a Sandy
Speaker 1: Bridge chip which has the onboard ability to graphics process
Speaker 1: or process graphics. Sorry. Uh, and you have a GPU
Speaker 1: as well, it seems that that you would have a
Speaker 1: lot of ability for your computer to use those computing cycles,
Speaker 1: you know, in both if it's if the operating system
Speaker 1: is capable of handling or you know, routing those instructions
Speaker 1: to different places like that. Yeah, and you've got some
Speaker 1: GPU manufacturers that are looking into doing CPUs now. So
Speaker 1: you know, while we're seeing Intel kind of push its
Speaker 1: way into the graphics processing unit world just by incorporating
Speaker 1: it into the chips, we're seeing the opposite from the
Speaker 1: graphics processing world as well. So uh yeah, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of competition in this space, and that's one of
Speaker 1: the things. As you make these elements smaller and smaller,
Speaker 1: you can you can really diversify what they can do.
Speaker 1: So let's let's look a little bit into the future,
Speaker 1: all right and look at some of the chips will
Speaker 1: be coming out over the next few years. So following
Speaker 1: sandy Bridge will be ivy Bridge, which of course will
Speaker 1: be another tick. So we're talking about a reduction in size.
Speaker 1: This chip is going to have elements on the twenty
Speaker 1: two nanometer scale. That's tiny. This is we're really getting
Speaker 1: the point where my mind's being blown. Keep in mind
Speaker 1: that the nanometer scale is approximate. It's about, you know,
Speaker 1: ten times the size of the atomic scale. So when
Speaker 1: you get to one nanometer, that's about the size of
Speaker 1: this is. This is oversimplifying, but ten atoms next to
Speaker 1: each other. So yeah, so this is a twenty two
Speaker 1: nanometer scale chip. Uh, and it's built. It will be
Speaker 1: built on the sandy Bridge micro architecture, so it follows
Speaker 1: the same plan. But after Ivy Bridge, what what happens, Well,
Speaker 1: then we're going to get has Well should be the talk.
Speaker 1: So that's gonna be new micro architecture based on this
Speaker 1: twenty two nanometer scale. And then following has Well, we
Speaker 1: get rockwell, which is the next tick, and that's going
Speaker 1: to be at an insanely small sixteen nanometer scale. And
Speaker 1: I remember thinking that I couldn't imagine them breaking the
Speaker 1: forty five nanometer barrier. I didn't think that they were
Speaker 1: going to get down to thirty two. I just didn't
Speaker 1: think it was gonna be physically possible, knowing what I knew,
Speaker 1: which granted, was very little about the physical limitations of
Speaker 1: of the materials they were using. And then you know,
Speaker 1: it's not just that you know the gates are have
Speaker 1: to be thick enough or made out of the right
Speaker 1: material to prevent electron tunneling. It's how do you actually
Speaker 1: design technology that can create things that's small and make
Speaker 1: it efficient enough so you can mass produce it, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's not just that it's one thing to
Speaker 1: figure out a way of making an element so small
Speaker 1: that it's that tiny. We've seen companies including IBM, use
Speaker 1: technology to manipulate single atoms and and create pictures with them,
Speaker 1: including the IBM logo. Right, that's a great one, right
Speaker 1: where they've used an electron microscope and they use the
Speaker 1: very tip of it to pull individual atoms and spell
Speaker 1: out IBM Um, there's a great picture of it online.
Speaker 1: Just do a Google search and you'll find it. But
Speaker 1: the you know, the fact that you can do this,
Speaker 1: that's not me. That doesn't mean that it's efficient or
Speaker 1: that you could do it on a mask. Lees So
Speaker 1: it's phenomenal to me. The note did they find the
Speaker 1: technology to to build things at the scale, but do
Speaker 1: it in an efficient way where you can actually make chips.
Speaker 1: I'm just you know, it's it's it's very impressive, and
Speaker 1: it's I'm just wondering how long Mr Moore's Law will
Speaker 1: continue to be a law. I mean, they're they're trying
Speaker 1: their hardness. Yeah, And it's it's funny because you said
Speaker 1: that people have been predicting the end of Moore's law.
Speaker 1: People have been predicting the end of Moore's Law since
Speaker 1: like the eighties. Well, and as you point out in
Speaker 1: your article, it would have gone by the wayside if
Speaker 1: they weren't actively trying to make it happen. Now that
Speaker 1: the companies it's become, it's almost like a self fulfilling prophecy, right, Uh,
Speaker 1: No one wants to admit that Moore's Law is has
Speaker 1: reached its end. Everyone wants to be able to keep
Speaker 1: pushing that innovation. For one thing, it is a motivator
Speaker 1: to innovate, and we want innovation. If we are we
Speaker 1: become unmodi vata, demotivated whatever you want to call it,
Speaker 1: to innovate, then we just stagnate. You know, we're gonna
Speaker 1: be like, well, we've gotten as far as we can
Speaker 1: go and that's it. No, No, it's better to sit
Speaker 1: there and say no, no, there's got to be a
Speaker 1: better way to make this even faster. Uh. And that
Speaker 1: way we keep moving forward, we progress, we advance, and um,
Speaker 1: that's kind of what Moore's laws helped us do. It's
Speaker 1: really pushed us to innovate so that we can keep
Speaker 1: up with this observation. And uh yeah, we'll probably reach
Speaker 1: a day at some point where at least the approach
Speaker 1: we're using now will no longer be feasible. In order
Speaker 1: to maintain More's law, we may have to have a
Speaker 1: complete shift in what it means to to build a computer, right,
Speaker 1: and may mean that we go through quantum computers which
Speaker 1: are still unproven, or we may have biological computers that
Speaker 1: uh that that utilized DNA as a computing technology. You know,
Speaker 1: once to get a taste at DNA. Yeah, but I
Speaker 1: do think that until really got onto something when they
Speaker 1: when they developed the strategy though, because it seems like
Speaker 1: by concentrating on either the size or the architecture and
Speaker 1: building around that, it gives them something to a point
Speaker 1: from which they can start and they can build a
Speaker 1: new chip without having to necessarily building everything from scratch.
Speaker 1: I think it probably cuts down I'm saying probably. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I'm an outsider here, you know, but uh,
Speaker 1: I would imagine it. It cuts down on the amount
Speaker 1: of time they have to spend preparing, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: a design for the new chip, because they have an
Speaker 1: idea of where they want to start. Um, it cuts
Speaker 1: down on the possibility of mistakes, which at this point,
Speaker 1: at this scale, a mistake would be a huge hit
Speaker 1: to reputation. I mean, yes, Intel is the giant chip manufacturer.
Speaker 1: They're They're storied in their past. Um, they have been
Speaker 1: sued for for monopoly. Yeah, they are definitely the dominant
Speaker 1: player in the market. And we will, I'm sure get
Speaker 1: someone who wants us to do the A M. D
Speaker 1: story or we have had people asked us to do
Speaker 1: A and D. And we will. We just we figured
Speaker 1: this would you know, when you're talking about micro processors,
Speaker 1: to not start with until seems ridiculous, just because it
Speaker 1: is such a huge player in that market. Yes it is.
Speaker 1: And that's the thing, even at its size. Uh. The
Speaker 1: the the semi scandal was sandy Bridge um was already
Speaker 1: starting to have an effect on intelent. You could see
Speaker 1: in the way that that the company reacted to the
Speaker 1: problem that it discovered that probably you know, they pulled
Speaker 1: those chips and stopped making the ones that they were
Speaker 1: making with that architecture. Yeah, do you want to just
Speaker 1: really quickly, Yeah, that problem had to do with other
Speaker 1: processor chips, not the not the actual sandy Bridge chip,
Speaker 1: but other hips on the motherboard that Intel was shipping
Speaker 1: out that would support the sandy Bridge chip. And uh,
Speaker 1: the problem was discovered that over time, uh, and we're
Speaker 1: talking about a fairly short time frame, the the performance
Speaker 1: of those chips would degrade fairly rapidly. And that you know,
Speaker 1: for most people it wouldn't really be a huge deal
Speaker 1: because most people are not really pushing their machine to
Speaker 1: its limits. But for the people who were pushing their
Speaker 1: machines too, as far as they're gonna go, Like the
Speaker 1: video gamers and the media editors out there, they would
Speaker 1: potentially notice a decrease in performance much more quickly than
Speaker 1: you would have anticipate for a typical computer. And so
Speaker 1: that meant that a lot of manufacturers and a lot
Speaker 1: of you know, a lot of computer retailers began to
Speaker 1: hold off on incorporating sandy Bridge motherboards into their systems
Speaker 1: until this was addressed, until these chips had been fixed
Speaker 1: and new motherboards were being shipped out. So it was
Speaker 1: kind of a black eye for Intel, But ultimately it
Speaker 1: was a problem not with the actual sandy Bridge microprocessor.
Speaker 1: UM but I'm sorry, go ahead, I'm sorry. I was
Speaker 1: just gonna say though that that that sort of illustrates
Speaker 1: my point though that um, this will help I think
Speaker 1: that this will help Intel cut down on the possibility
Speaker 1: that there will be um architecture problems with these chips.
Speaker 1: Because they have a place from which to start, they
Speaker 1: can go ahead and get moving on it. Obviously, with
Speaker 1: the roadmap set out years in advance, the company already
Speaker 1: has an idea of where it's going, so it can
Speaker 1: be it can be working on the next chip even
Speaker 1: before this chip is released. Actually, yeah, they're working on
Speaker 1: like the next three chips. By the time a chip
Speaker 1: has come out, you can get your it's it's a
Speaker 1: guarantee that they're working on at least the next two,
Speaker 1: if not three generations. And that's just impressive that they
Speaker 1: that the company is is that efficient and programmed out
Speaker 1: that it knows what it's doing and it can move
Speaker 1: ahead with confidence. And in case you're curious as to
Speaker 1: what strategy they used before TikTok, uh, it was that
Speaker 1: they were concentrating on reducing the size of their transistors
Speaker 1: every year. So each year they were trying to to
Speaker 1: double the number of transistors on a chip, but they
Speaker 1: were only looking at the micro architecture every two to
Speaker 1: four to sometimes six years, so they were only adjusting
Speaker 1: the efficiency of the chips, uh, you know, sporadically, while
Speaker 1: whereas they were reducing the size year over year over year.
Speaker 1: And that's when they realized that, well, this is not
Speaker 1: really sustainable if we want to truly stay twice as power,
Speaker 1: keep a chip twice as powerful two years out. Uh
Speaker 1: So they readjusted their strategy and that's when they adopted TikTok.
Speaker 1: So it seems to be working for them. So good
Speaker 1: job Intel. I'm sure other companies use similar strategies. Uh,
Speaker 1: this was just one that has actually become fairly famous,
Speaker 1: at least in the technology world, so we wanted to
Speaker 1: to tackle it. Oh, that kind of wraps up this
Speaker 1: discussion about the TikTok strategy. So if you have any questions,
Speaker 1: or you want to suggest your own topic of favorite topic,
Speaker 1: if it's A and D, or perhaps it has nothing
Speaker 1: to do with chips at all. You just want to
Speaker 1: hear us talk about video game music more, let us
Speaker 1: know tunes, Yes, you can let us know on Twitter
Speaker 1: or Facebook are handled. There is text stuff HSW or
Speaker 1: you can send us an email. That address is tech
Speaker 1: stuff at how stuff works dot com and Chris and
Speaker 1: I will talk you again really soon for more on
Speaker 1: this and thousands of other topics. Is it how stuff
Speaker 1: works dot com. To learn more about the podcast, click
Speaker 1: on the podcast icon in the upper right corner of
Speaker 1: our homepage. The How Stuff Works iPhone app has arrived.
Speaker 1: Download it today on iTunes, brought to you by the
Speaker 1: reinvented two thousand twelve camera. It's ready, are you