Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!dino!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!nelson
From: nelson@m.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: ATTACK OF KILLER MICROS (Actual
Message-ID: <3300084@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 22 Nov 89 01:30:24 GMT
References: <221@dg.dg.com>
Lines: 21
Nf-ID: #R:dg.dg.com:221:m.cs.uiuc.edu:3300084:000:876
Nf-From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!nelson    Nov 21 10:00:00 1989


> Actually, I don't see this (dare I say it) EVER occuring.  Ignoring
...
>  a tenfold (opinion/guess).  That leaves you with an inch of wiring
>  for the critical path for this super technology -- that does not
>  seem nearly enough to build a nano-processor around. 

Well, I was thinking only in terms of reasonable today-type technology
  ideas.  I came up with something of a lower bound.  I assumed that
  the smallest transistor is an angstrom in length.  Then I used
  some guesses as to what a processor has to contain, etc.

As it all comes down, it seems that our lower bound is on the order
  of 10 picoseconds for a cycle time in a processor.  Other parts
  would obviously have a lower lower bound.

Now you may say that there is no way that a transistor or transistor-
  work-alike can be built that small...  Maybe so, but it is (?) a
  lower bound.

-- Taed.