Contents

Talk:Integrated circuit: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:40, 14 February 2022

Electronics C‑class High‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Vital article

Technology C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:WP1.0

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 25, 2004, February 6, 2005, February 6, 2006, February 6, 2007, February 6, 2011, and May 7, 2011.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Integrated circuit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511181443/http://www.epn-online.com/page/22909/the-hapless-tale-of-geoffrey-dummer-this-is-the-sad-.htmltohttp://www.epn-online.com/page/22909/the-hapless-tale-of-geoffrey-dummer-this-is-the-sad-.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Topics that haven't been active in quite some time have been put into the archive, available from the link above. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone tagged Die (integrated circuit) for merger here back in April, but didn't set up any discussion. It's essentially a one paragraph definition, and could easily and profitably be merged here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There's plenty of scope. The fact it hasn't been written yet is no reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Care to amplify? What do you see as possible topics for Die (integrated circuit)? If someone ever adds enough to this article to make a "die" article feasible, that could be done, too. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated circuit has to begin with, and is largely about, ICs as components, viewed from the outside. What do they do, how are they used, what are they useful for. A smaller part of that should be how they do it, how they're made and how they came to exist. This is still an enormous topic, far too big for a single article.

Die (integrated circuit) is about an aspect of their manufacture. It's still a big topic, with plenty of scope for it. It could also spread into either the packaging issues off-die (packages, connections, connection bonding, heat management, UV windowing) or the manufacturing issues (wafer growth, dicing, header mounting, connection bonding, package sealing, longevity and whiskering).

Even stretching both of those topic areas quite broadly, there's still sufficient distance between them, and sufficient scope to fill them, that two (or more) articles would be far better than one, even for the lightweight generalist audience. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy the assertion that we need to leave mergeable turds around because someone could one day come and expand them. If someone does want to do some serious expansion they can easily do so within a section of an existing article and if that becomes outsized for the article a WP:SPLIT can be performed.

More to the point, a lot of information on the Die (integrated circuit) topic already seems to exist at Wafer (electronics). If there is to be a merge, this may be a better target. Maybe some sloshing between these three articles (and others, I'm sure) would improve organization. ~Kvng (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between wafers and dice is that wafers are grown and fabricated as such, then diced (another separate article) into dice and then packaged. The fabrication and packaging steps are both so big and so important that they can easily support separate articles. We can best cover fabrication under wafer and packaging under die.

If you object to this article as a "turd", then the obvious solution is to polish it. It's a well-known subject, there are many sources and many capable editors familiar with this field. You can't claim that it's unimprovable. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another legitimate alternative is to merge it into Wafer (electronics) until such time as the coverage there merits a WP:SPLIT. I am not trying to argue that Die (integrated circuit) is unimprovable, I'm just pointing out that there is more than one way to improve coverage of the topic and one such way starts with a merge. Having the content-under-development centralized is potentially helpful to readers and editors. That said, I respect the other ways this can be worked on and am not advocating that we do the merge in this case. ~Kvng (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Integrated circuit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150802073506/http://www.edac.org/industrytohttp://www.edac.org/industry

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article Programmable logic device, integrated circuits "consist of logic gates and have a fixed function." However, according to the article Field-programmable gate array, an FPGA is an "integrated circuit designed to be configured by a customer or a designer after manufacturing," which seems like a contradiction to the former. So, can an integrated circuit be configured (and reconfigured) after it has been manufactured or not? —Kri (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead of Programmable logic device could be better written. It says, in part, "Unlike integrated circuits (IC) which consist of logic gates and have a fixed function a PLD has an undefined function at the time of manufacture."

I think what this passage really means is "Unlike other integrated circuits (IC) which consist of logic gates and have a fixed function, PLDs are a type of IC have an undefined function at the time of manufacture."

There is no doubt that some ICs are reconfigurable. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am going significantly rewrite this section as there is several mistakes and exaggerations. The claim that "The monolithic integrated circuit chip was enabled by Mohamed M. Atalla's surface passivation process, which electrically stabilized silicon surfaces via thermal oxidation, making it possible to fabricate monolithic integrated circuit chips using silicon. This was the basis for the planar process, developed by Jean Hoerni at Fairchild Semiconductor in early 1959, which was critical to the invention of the monolithic integrated circuit chip", is exaggeration. Arjun Saxena in his book Invention on Integrated circuit, say that surface passivation was one of several factors that contributed to Hoerni's invention of planar process(page 95-102), but he did not consider it critical at all. Same with Bo Lojek's History of Semiconductor engineering, Atalla is briefly mentioned in his book, most of the information is on Hoerni. The claim appers to be based on one sentence remark by Sah. I am going to rewrite it according to Saxena.

The claim " Atalla's surface passivation process isolated individual diodes and transistors,[11] which was extended to independent transistors on a single piece of silicon by Kurt Lehovec at Sprague Electric in 1959" appeared be OR. I cant find anything about influence of passivation process on Lehovec.

"Atalla first proposed the concept of the MOS integrated circuit (MOS IC) chip in 1960, noting that the MOSFET's ease of fabrication made it useful for integrated circuits"- again this is wrong. Moskowitz says that Atallah, after proposing MOS transistor noted that it will be useful in IC as it is easier to manufacture, that's not the same as proposing "concept" of MOS IC. Ross Basset in his Book To The Digital Age,eplain this in details(page 28). Here is the quaote : "Except for a few special applications, Atalla and Kahng’s device would be useable only within a subset of the design space covered by the silicon bipolar device. Its main advantage, ease of fabrication, had little relevance to the industry at the time. To call Atalla and Kahng’s device an invention was almost a contradiction in terms, for it was inferior by every relevant standard.39 The one area in which Kahng and Atalla recognized their device might be advantageous was of no interest to Bell Labs. Kahng mentioned that the device would be suitable for integrated circuits". DMKR2005 (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article lead claims『Integrated circuits were made practical by technological advancements in metal–oxide–silicon (MOS) semiconductor device fabrication.』 This is pretty much false. TTL and other technologies were commercially available as ICs before CMOS ICs. TTL continued in wide use even when CMOS became available because of its speed advantage. CMOS was preferred at first only in low speed applications where it had other advantages such as low power consumption and high fan-in/fan-out. Perhaps what is meant is that CMOS made practical single chip processors and other VLSI applications that could fit in a small package without getting hot enough to fry bacon on. SpinningSpark 15:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, bipolar transistor integrated circuits were both practical and important for at least a decade before MOS became important. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But by that argument, Bit slicing would have been much more popular, which didn't happen. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a non-sequiter. You'll need to explain what you mean by that. It doesn't follow from anything I said. The only argument I have made is that it is false that MOS made ICs practical. How can it be concluded from that that bit slicing should have been more popular? SpinningSpark 12:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]