|
→Made practical by MOS: phraseology
|
||
Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
:::::Microprocessors were the battleground; by upping the clock, ECL consumed more power, where COS/MOS consumes power only during the rise/fall times of the clock pulses (in the times between transitions of voltage levels). So microprocessors could just expand the number and scope of their applications, because they could exploit Moore's law by upping the clock, and by decreasing their feature size, and by increasing wafer size. Otherwise, ICs would only have remained part of the glue logic of circuits; higher levels of integration ([[VLSI]]) would not have been warranted by remaining implemented as bipolar transistor circuits alone. But semiconductor memory chips would have just have consumed more power at higher clock rates, if memory chips had remained implemented as bipolar transistors only. Intel understood this, and planned to make their money on MOS memory chips, before microprocessors were invented. --[[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]] [[User talk:Ancheta Wis| (talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Ancheta Wis| | contribs)]] 14:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
:::::Microprocessors were the battleground; by upping the clock, ECL consumed more power, where COS/MOS consumes power only during the rise/fall times of the clock pulses (in the times between transitions of voltage levels). So microprocessors could just expand the number and scope of their applications, because they could exploit Moore's law by upping the clock, and by decreasing their feature size, and by increasing wafer size. Otherwise, ICs would only have remained part of the glue logic of circuits; higher levels of integration ([[VLSI]]) would not have been warranted by remaining implemented as bipolar transistor circuits alone. But semiconductor memory chips would have just have consumed more power at higher clock rates, if memory chips had remained implemented as bipolar transistors only. Intel understood this, and planned to make their money on MOS memory chips, before microprocessors were invented. --[[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]] [[User talk:Ancheta Wis| (talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Ancheta Wis| | contribs)]] 14:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::::: You continue to argue against a point I haven't made. I don't disagree with what you say. You are beating up a strawman. The sentence I highlighted still remains untrue. This article is about ICs, not specifically uprocessors or VLSI. I already said in my opening comment CMOS made VLSI practical. But there were practical ICs prior to CMOS and prior to VLSI. [[User:Spinningspark|<b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b>]] 14:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
:::::: You continue to argue against a point I haven't made. I don't disagree with what you say. You are beating up a strawman. The sentence I highlighted still remains untrue. This article is about ICs, not specifically uprocessors or VLSI. I already said in my opening comment CMOS made VLSI practical. But there were practical ICs prior to CMOS and prior to VLSI. [[User:Spinningspark|<b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b>]] 14:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::::::So how about "Integrated circuits were made <s>practical</s> ubiquitous..." --[[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]] [[User talk:Ancheta Wis| (talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Ancheta Wis| | contribs)]] 14:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
![]() | Electronics C‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | Technology C‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | 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:
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).
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]
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:
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).
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 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]