Intel shows cache-quadding technology
Big arrays all round
THERE’S A GEEK-FEST TAKING PLACE in Hawai’i, of all places, and it’s called the VLSI Symposia – that’s fine by us, give us a working vacation any day over…uhm… work. The crammed brains-in-attendance have been able to show some interesting developments in the field of semiconductor research – including Intel’s own slideware which they’ve so graciously sent us for analysis.
If you’ve been following Intel’s achievements over the past few years, you’ll have noticed that Chipzilla is they are repeatedly reaching the design limit on a few elements in their chips. The latest example had been the leaky 45nm process, which they bathed in Hafnium and gave high-K metal gates. Now Intel is trying to push cache to a guesstimated 3 to 4 times its current capacity by using Floating Body Cells (FBC).
Floating Body Cells have nothing to do with corpses bobbing up and down in the Hudson River. It’s all about SOI, and although Intel didn’t like IBM/AMD’s SOI back in the daze they like it enough now that they need it. The FBC (your bit of storage) hangs under the gate and over the 10nm thin buried oxide (BOX) layer, meaning its small, simple (ie: cost effective) and – from what we garner, won’t suffer from the electric shortcomings of current DRAM designs. Intel also says it’s a bit more scalable than previous caches. This would also, potentially, lead to a new species of DRAM some time down the line, but Intel’s business isn’t about building DRAM, it’s about building CPUs.
Intel is plugging this as the next-gen of cache, with lower costs and higher density. The technology itself has been discussed and worked on by other companies for a few years now (the oldest we can remember was Tosh presenting the same FBC tech, albeit with fewer refinements, at VLSI 2003).
One of the missionaries also presented (what we expect to be) the next transistor technology: High-K + Metal Gate strain-enhanced. Intel is counting on this tech to improve yields and shave some costs off CPU production – an all-round win-win situation, we guess.
Unfortunately the above techs are still a work-in-progress, and Intel didn’t talk timelines – the slideware, however, does say that FBC is suitable for “15nm node and beyond” (about 3-4 years in our calendar) and High K+strained metal gate is the “best transistor results for any published 45nm or 32nm technology" , which sounds like right about… uhmm… now? So you'd expect the Nehalem family to feature this tech as it launches.
For some reason (we can’t imagine which) the Intel missionaries tried to convert the native (and non-native) Hawaiians to the greatness of Nehalem’s clocks – on the argument that decoupling all the clocks and power settings (which for some reason *sounds* wrong to overclockers) is the way to go, hence Quick Path Interconnect.
Unfortunately they were all on Luau time and couldn’t care less. µ

Comments
Bad Taste?
"Floating Body Cells have nothing to do with corpses bobbing up and down in the Hudson River."Possibly not the best analogy.
Winced a few times
Good info... but had to wince on some of the 'creative' interpertations of it:" the slideware, however, does say that FBC is suitable for “15nm node and beyond” (about 3-4 years in our calendar"
OK..current =45 nm (Intel at least), 32nm +2 years (~end 09), 22nm +2 years (~end 11), 15nm + 2 years (~end 13)... so at least 5 years out. I think you forgot a technology node. "beyond 15nm" would put it 7 years out.
"It’s all about SOI, and although Intel didn’t like IBM/AMD’s SOI back in the daze they like it enough now that they need it. The FBC (your bit of storage) hangs under the gate and over the 10nm thin buried oxide (BOX) layer, meaning its small, simple (ie: cost effective) and – from what we garner, won’t suffer from the electric shortcomings of current DRAM designs. "
Ouch... first the SOI's we are talking about are different (IBM/AMD use a fairly thick SOI which is NOT the same as the SOI Intel is discussing here) and your 'garnering' on DRAM limitations along with $5 may be worth a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Intel's issue with SOI was that for transistors (logic), the benefit of SOI did not scale as things shrunk...there was benefit on 130nm/90nm but as you shrank the devices the benefit lessened - ask IBM/AMD how SOI is scaling on the transistor front (and whether the benefits are as substantial as what they saw on 90nm/130nm)
The DRAM limitation is all about aspect ratio (not SOI, or electric-ness). In order to pack them closely you have very high aspect ratios (tall thin devices) in order to get the area needed for the capacitor. The shortcomings are not "electric" it is the difficulty in manufacturing such high aspect ratio devices.
Now I expect I will get flamed for the technical-ness and dryness of this response, but perhaps one reader will leave less mis-informed.
Hanging under and over
Layer of this over newfangled pixie dust under layer of that. Does this mean 3D engraving ?Are we going to get 3D CPUs in a few years, or is this all just a new version of technical mumbo-jumbo until something really new is found ?
FBC
So isn't FBC like Z-ram then? Surely they'd have to work around existing patents? AMD better get it's butt into gear too since they've been sitting on this for a while now.Can you say
Z-Ram, they have been working on FBC in SOI for years now, but haven't gotten the speed up to equal the CPU.Intels Self Service & Why Fails Sooner,too.
Intel in its Best, X48 is NOT Best Choice. Whiles Take 'Er Down to .89?75 volt core, Intel forces 1.24 Minimum thru Intels Main circuits. intel knows there are times outside that range & keeBam, No More Main. Too narrow of choice while all others offer greater latitude in specs. Intel just wearsed out.So with Hi-K, its much more likely to use entire 1.34 or so voltage without dipping to super low states or BSOD. While another mfg might get Intel CPU to Low,Low State & last longer run better, etc, while Intel makes compromised situation & Enforces it with need for higher voltage to activate Gate with higher resistances than other cpu/mains use.
Drashek
Reply to Hanging under and over
Pascal Monett: CPUs have been 3D devices with many layers for quite some years.Reply to byelaw
No, bad taste would be to say "Floating in the Mississippi"Bodies in the Hudson are like seagulls at the dump, plentiful and an unfortunate fact of life.