Why trying to reduce the size of processors and not increase?


Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/styllloz/public_html/qa-theme/donut-theme/qa-donut-layer.php on line 274
0 like 0 dislike
11 views
After a sleepless night came up with the question:


Why trying to reduce the size of processors and not increase?


For example, the first i7 flagship processor in the consumer line of Intel, has an area of 263 sq. mm. Why so few? It would seem, increase of twice — cram 4 times more processor cores, and for servers in General can be rack-mounted processors to produce, 19ti inch)))


The problem here is in marketing or any other physical limitations?
by | 11 views

7 Answers

0 like 0 dislike
there are a lot of reasons
1. Less technologically advanced process makes smaller parts inside of the processor. Therefore, the structure and capabilities of the processor increased and the size decreased
2. Less energy consumption. The question here is not so much "pity energy", and the problem of diversion of such a huge amount of heat with malenkogo piece of silicon
3. "To cram 4 times more cores" is not profitable from an economic point of view. When the processors are stamped packs has a record as rejection. The more you cram inside, the less chance that the result at the output of the conveyor will be at least half of the workers percent.
\r
This is certainly the explanation in your own words, if you want details and details that Google to help
by
0 like 0 dislike
and yet, with a clock frequency of 3 GHz light (and electromagnetic interactions) spread to a distance of 10 centimeters.
but because the interaction is spread on the CPU is not straight, but on complex trajectories, the maximum size of the processor will not 70x70 mm and less.
size, for example, Xeon'a — 42.5 mm x 45mm. it is in the housing. the dimensions of the chip is approximately 16x16mm. and it's practically the limit.
by
0 like 0 dislike
Even the speed of light, though large, but finite. As far as I know, if you increase the lengths of the conductors, there are problems synchronizing the various components of the processor.
by
0 like 0 dislike
Production of crystal of high purity and the ideal geometric characteristics — a difficult task. The larger the area, the more difficult and consequently higher price.
\r
And the second is performance. The more geometry, the more stray capacitance, inductance.
\r
The third heat. The smaller the size of the element, the less resistance and the energy cost of its switching.
by
0 like 0 dislike
Each individual processor is grown on the plate, where lots of it. The smaller the area of the individual chip (processor), the more they fit on one plate and the greater the profit.
by
0 like 0 dislike
Actually everything has already been said in the first response. I will explain only what the decisive factor is the percentage of rejection. The more transistors the more expensive it will cost processor.
\r
And yet, nobody is trying specifically to reduce the area, just so it goes through the reduction process. (and finished the extra blocks just to catch up with the area to the "norm" is fraught with a high percentage of marriage, and therefore a higher price.)
by
0 like 0 dislike
The problem is that the price of crystal is growing very rapidly with the increase of space due to rejection. With this at the time on the DSLRs ran. And that now, in principle, the same.
Well, probably more physical limitations (above).
by

Related questions

0 like 0 dislike
6 answers
asked Mar 28, 2019 by Sagaris
0 like 0 dislike
2 answers
0 like 0 dislike
2 answers
0 like 0 dislike
1 answer
asked Jun 6, 2019 by Dicur3x
110,608 questions
257,186 answers
0 comments
28,014 users