Looking to the Future:
International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors 2.0

The ten year anniversary of Conroe comes at a time when the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors report into the next 10-15 years of the industry has been officially launched to the public. This biennial report is compiled by a group of experts in the semiconductor industry from the US, Europe and Asia and is designed to help the industry dictate which path to focus R&D for the next 10-15 years, and runs for nearly 500 pages. While we could go into extensive detail about the contents, we plan to give a brief overview here. But for people interested in the industry, it’s a great read for sure.

The report includes deep discussions regarding test equipment, process integration, radio frequency implementations (RF), microelectromechanical systems (MEMs), photolithography, factory integration, assembly, packaging, environmental issues, improving yields, modeling/simulation and emerging materials. With a focused path to a number of technologies, the hope is that leading contenders in each part of the industry can optimize and improve efficiency in directional research and development, with the possibility of collaboration, rather than taking many different routes.

Obviously such a report is going to make successful and unsuccessful predictions, even with a group of experts, based on the introduction of moonshot style features (FinFET) or unforeseen limitations in future development. For example, here is the first roadmap published by the Semiconductor Industry Association in the first report in 1993:


Original 1993 Semiconductor Industry Association roadmap

As we can see, by 2007 it was predicted that we would be on 10nm 100nm chips with up to 20 million ‘gates’, up to 4GB of SRAM per chip and 1250mm2 of logic per die. Up to 400mm wafers were expected in this timeframe, with 200W per die and 0.002 defects per square cm (or 5.65 errors per 300mm wafer).

Compare that to 2016, where we have 16/14nm lithography nodes running 300mm wafers producing 15 billion transistors on a 610mm2 die (NVIDIA P100). Cache currently goes up to 60-65MB on the largest chips, and the power consumption of these chips (the ASIC power) is around 250W as well. So while the predictions were a slow on the lithography node, various predictions about the integration of components onto a base processor were missed (memory controllers, chipsets, other IO).

What makes the most recent report different is that it is listed as the last report planned by ITRS, to be replaced by a more generalized roadmap for devices and systems, the IRDS as the utility of semiconductors has changed over the last decade. In this last report, a number of predictions and focal points have been picked up by the media, indicating a true end to Moore’s Law and how to progress beyond merely shrinking lithography nodes beyond 7nm. Part of this comes from the changing landscape, the move to IoT and the demand for big data processing and storage, but also the decrease in the profitability/performance gain of decreasing node sizes in comparison to their cost to develop is, if believed, set to put a paradigm shift in integrated circuit development. This applies to processors, to mobile, to DRAM and other industry focal points, such as data centers and communications.

I do want to quote one part of the paper verbatim here, as it ties into the fundamental principles of the future of semiconductor engineering:

“Moore’s Law is dead, long live Moore’s Law”

The question of how long will Moore’s Law last has been posed an infinite number of times since the 80s and every 5-10 years publications claiming the end of Moore’s Law have appeared from the most unthinkable and yet “reputedly qualified” sources. Despite these alarmist publications the trend predicted by Moore’s Law has continued unabated for the past 50 years by morphing from one scaling method to another, where one method ended the next one took over. This concept has completely eluded the comprehension of casual observes that have mistakenly interpreted the end of one scaling method as the end of Moore’s Law. As stated before, bipolar transistors were replaced by PMOS that were replaced by NMOS that were also replaced by CMOS. Equivalent scaling succeeded Geometrical Scaling when this could not longer operate and now 3D Power Scaling is taking off.

By 2020-25 device features will be reduces to a few nanometers and it will become practically impossible to reduce device dimensions any further. At first sight this consideration seems to prelude to the unavoidable end of the integrated circuit era but once again the creativity of scientists and engineers has devised a method ‘To snatch victory from the jaws of defeat’.

Core: Performance vs. Today Looking To The Future: 450mm Wafers in 2021, and Down to ‘2nm’
Comments Locked

158 Comments

View All Comments

  • Hazly79 - Wednesday, July 27, 2016 - link

    History of Intel processor
    i 386 1986
    i 486 1989 - 94
    Pentium / MMX 1994 - 96
    Pentium II 1997
    Pentium III 1999
    Pentium 4 / 4 HT 2002 - 04
    Pentium D 2005
    Core [ 2 ] Duo 2006 - 08
    Core [ 2 ] Quad 2007 - 08
    Core [ i ] Nehalem 2008
    Core [ i ] Westmere 2009
    Core [ i ] Sandy Bridge 2011
    Core [ i ] Ivy Bridge 2012
    Core [ i ] Haswell 2013
    Core [ i ] Broadwell 2014
    Core [ i ] Skylake 2015
    Core [ i ] Kabylake 2016
  • AnnonymousCoward - Wednesday, July 27, 2016 - link

    So how many decades will it take til cpus have significantly faster single-thread than a 6700K@4.4GHz?
  • Notmyusualid - Thursday, July 28, 2016 - link

    +1
  • Mr Perfect - Wednesday, July 27, 2016 - link

    Hmm. We've got an ancient 2007 Macbook with a 2GHz C2D(T7200 I think) in it that's still used for web browsing on a daily basis. Upgrading it to 4GB of ram and a SSD made it surprisingly capable.

    It's not all a bed of roses though, as random things will come out of left field and floor it. I think it's mostly flash heavy sites, but Twitter and Vine freak it out a little.
  • Hulk - Wednesday, July 27, 2016 - link

    I vividly remember the anticipation and hype leading up to the C2D release. The the years of struggle Intel had with Netburst before Conroe. It was what I consider the end of the golden age of the CPU. Great job Ian!
  • Impulseman45 - Wednesday, July 27, 2016 - link

    Ah, it wasn't the Pentium Pro it was based on. The Core family was a direct descendant of the Pentium 3 Tualatin. They stopped sales of the of the Pentium 3 Tualatin because it was outperforming the Pentium 4. They migrated that technology to the notebook line as it was much more efficient. It became the Pentium M. When Intel realized that the Pentium 4 Netburst architecture was a dead end and they needed a new chip to go up against AMD, they sourced their notebook chips to build the Core series. See this is what is called re-writing history. Come on guys, it is very well known that they sourced the Pentium M Yohan for the Core series. I do not know who did your research but it is all wrong. Go back and recheck your information. The Pentium Pro was the granddaddy of all the Pentium 2 and 3 chips so yeah, you can point to that chip in a vague way as the ancestor. But the Pentium 4 can as well well. So to be to the point, the core lines DNA goes back directly to the Pentium 3 Tualatin, So we have all been using very, very hopped up Pentium 3s the last 10 years. The Tualatin was an excellent chip. It overclock like crazy. There were Celeron and Sever P3 versions and all of them beat the hell out of the P4. Its know reason Intel had to kill it. Do more research so you can post accurate articles, please.
  • Michael Bay - Thursday, July 28, 2016 - link

    >teaching AT about CPU architectures

    Damn it, you`re a riot!
  • Impulseman45 - Thursday, July 28, 2016 - link

    These are not the original AT guys, they are all new people and they are not doing the research they should be doing. This is how history can get changed. People look to a reputable tech site that got something wrong and its written in stone. Well AT says this is how it is, even if they are wrong. Go check the history directly from Intel, This article is wrong and that is a fact, period. I felt it just needed to be called out on.
  • natenu - Monday, August 1, 2016 - link

    Refreshing to see this comment. HT was a marketing joke to keep up with clock rate shoppers.
  • wumpus - Tuesday, August 2, 2016 - link

    When Dave Barry jokes about "speed is measured in Megahertz" you know you are ripe for some marketing in your engineering.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now