New 2D chip breakthrough may crush silicon chips forever
China has begun mass production of next-generation processors based on molybdenum disulfide instead of traditional silicon semiconductors[1]. According to Professor Li Hongge’s team at Beihang University, these chips merge binary and stochastic logic to achieve better fault tolerance and power efficiency for applications like touch displays and flight systems[2].
The breakthrough came through developing a Hybrid Stochastic Number (HSN) system that combines traditional binary with probability-based numbers[2:1]. This innovation helps overcome two major challenges in chip technology - the power wall from binary systems’ high energy consumption, and the architecture wall that makes new non-silicon chips difficult to integrate with conventional systems[2:2].
What I keep explaining to you here is that silicon is not inevitable, and that it’s obviously possible to make other substrates work and bring costs down. I’ve also explained to you why it makes no business sense for companies already invested in silicon to do that. The reason China has a big incentive is because they don’t currently have the ability to make top end chips. So, they can do moonshot projects at state level, and if one of them succeeds then they can leapfrog a whole generation of tech that way.
You just keep repeating that silicon is the best material for the job without substantiating that in any way. Your whole argument is tautological, amounting to saying that silicon is widely used and therefore it’s the best fit.
Without substantiating? I linked a Wikipedia article as a source, which explains quite a lot of the reasoning for choosing silicon.
The only thing that you reiterate here is economics of scale and you haven’t provided any source that substantiates that there are other materials where the economics of scale might lead to a better and/or cheaper product.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
What I keep explaining to you here is that silicon is not inevitable, and that it’s obviously possible to make other substrates work and bring costs down. I’ve also explained to you why it makes no business sense for companies already invested in silicon to do that. The reason China has a big incentive is because they don’t currently have the ability to make top end chips. So, they can do moonshot projects at state level, and if one of them succeeds then they can leapfrog a whole generation of tech that way.
You just keep repeating that silicon is the best material for the job without substantiating that in any way. Your whole argument is tautological, amounting to saying that silicon is widely used and therefore it’s the best fit.
Without substantiating? I linked a Wikipedia article as a source, which explains quite a lot of the reasoning for choosing silicon.
The only thing that you reiterate here is economics of scale and you haven’t provided any source that substantiates that there are other materials where the economics of scale might lead to a better and/or cheaper product.