This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Since this article is the Selected Article, the example specs in the article should be more current than 5 years ago. Especially for a fast moving field like IC.
I'm not sure I'd characterize the 4000 series as the successors to 7400 line. My understanding was that there were uses where the 7400 would be preferable and others where the 4000 would be preferable. And when CMOS really did eclipse TTL, both of these were commonly getting replaced with ASICs. Ckape 06:44, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Any information on why a particular IC, say the 555 timer IC or any of the 74 ICs, is named so would be appreciated. Is it purely chosen by the manufacturer or is there some convention involved?
Since alot of devices have a name that starts with a lowercase I (e.g. iMac, iPod, ix86, etc.); does the I stand for integrated for those devices? -- SuperDude 22:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The text says "Noyce credited Kurt Lehovec of Sprague Electric for the principle of dielectric isolation caused by the action of a p-n junction (the diode) as a key concept behind the IC". I've never heard of that principle, and a search using Google only retrieves exactly the same sentence. It seems to me to make little sense - dielectrics are insulators, and in IC fab we would expect dielectric isolation to be caused by an oxide, nitride or similar layer on top of a conducting layer. Can anyone shed light on whether this principle really exists? -- Phil Holmes 10:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Just done the search and come up with http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=3,029,366.WKU.&OS=PN/3,029,366&RS=PN/3,029,366 which is the full text of the patent. I've OCRed it and it only mentions dielectric once - in a piece on capacitors. Whilst I accept that a pn junction can function as a dielectric, I maintain that this is unusual usage. It seems to me that Noyce actually credits Lehovec with the invention of pn junction isolation in ICs.
I've tried to find the Scientific American article in full and failed - the best I can find is: "In an article entitled ""Microelectronics", published in "Scientific American", September 1977 Volume 23, Number 3, pp. 63-9, he wrote:
"The integrated circuit, as we conceived and developed it at Fairchild Semiconductor in 1959, accomplishes the separation and interconnection of transistors and other circuit elements electrically rather than physically. The separation is accomplished by introducing pn diodes, or rectifiers, which allow current to flow in only one direction. The technique was patented by Kurt Lehovec at the Sprague Electric Company"." at http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1997/sep/m01-033.shtml
Again - no mention of the principle of dielectric isolation. -- Phil Holmes 20:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
To be fair,
Jean Hoerni deserves equal billing.
Ancheta Wis 11:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
One of the fundamental features of silicon as a semiconductor is that it is easy to grow SiO2 on it, and that this glass layer forms a reliable barrier to dopants, and is (relatively) easily etched with good fidelity. I'm convinced that this is one of the main reasons why silicon dominates IC fab (tho' there are others - mechanical strength and convenient band gap included). I feeel strongly tempted to write a "why silicon" section, but I'm not sure where to put it. It could go somewhere in this article (but where?) or in the fabrication article, or somewhere else. Any thoughts? -- Phil Holmes 08:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Were these the names given at the time? The article makes it sound like that, though I doubt it. The MSIs were probably considered very high-tech at the time, not "medium," just like our most advanced CPUs today will seem pathetic in a few years. Could that be clarified? Twilight Realm 02:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Something that has puzzled me for a long time: why are these slithers of silicon called dice when they don't at all look like dice? Please help to unpuzzle me! Thanks, -- Maikel 16:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Does the microchip nickname come from the maker of PIC's name: Microchip Technology? -- Josh Atkins ( talk - contribs) 15:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been a working engineer in Silicon Valley (er, Santa Clara valley) since the latter 1970s. I spent ten years, for example, at MIPS Computer Systems and SGI. The usage "microchip" is so completely absent from the vernacular of our industry that its utterance can be reliably used as an indicator that the speaker is an alien; generally, some kind of journalist (the context of the not-at-all informidable Microchip Technology (formerly, GI) accepted). Rt3368 ( talk) 19:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The term artwork has been in use on engineering drawings for electronic circuits, including printed circuits, since before the invention of the IC. I object to the use of the phrase 'silicon artwork' solely for those constructs which might be construed as subject to artistic license. Hence I reverted. Real estate on a chip is valuable and subject to signoff. A chip such as a microprocessor is constructed by teams of hundreds of people. It would be difficult to get by a review. It is true that custom chips might be built by only a few minds, and that it is cheaper to build chips which might share a wafer in a custom run, and that it would then be possible to permit artistic license, but the occurrence would definitely not be on an industrial scale. -- Ancheta Wis 22:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
An already existing page Chip art, covers this topic more thoroughly than Silicon Doodling. Hence I replaced Silicon Doodling with a re-direct, and changed the link. LouScheffer 02:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Due to the line "Each device is tested before packaging. The wafer is then cut into small rectangles called 'die'. Each die is then connected into a package using aluminium (or occasionally gold) wires which are welded to pads, usually found around the edge of the die". Actually it is die or dice?
The definition die=singular; dice=plural is correct. However, the original sentence wasn't good English - imagine if it had said "cut into small rectangles called square" - it should be "cut into small rectangles called squares". So I've made it "dice" in that sentence and put a small parenthetic comment about die/dice. -- Phil Holmes 13:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Dice is clearly the plural form of die when you're playing Craps or Yahtzee, but not when you're talking about integrated circuits cut from a wafer. According to several dictionary entries [2] and even other wikipedia articles [3] [4], the correct plural form of die is "dies" in this context. My best explanation for this is that the term "die" was probably borrowed from the metalworking industry, where repeated stamps or punches are commonly called "dies". ~ Fanblade 20:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It is important not to Dice spread meanings beyond usefulness. An IC, per history of the term, consists of a monolithic circuit. The current dual-core CPUs still qualify because they still use the same silicon; the multi-die flash memories do not qualify because they are separate chips in a hybrid package. Same with the flash memories packaged a separate USB interface chip -- its hybrid packaging.Dice
When matched transistors are an important consideration, the processing of an IC can provide intrinsically matched components without preselection. There is no poiDicnt in calling tube circuit an IC. This just makes the term a curiosity.
The historical use of a separate glass assembly to hold multiple filaments calls to mind the use of chimneys to vent multiple flues, in Europe, thus avoiding the chimney tax. Interesting, but of small economic importance, compared to the huge stream of improvements on the IC.
When you examine the history of the hybrid circuit, look at the packaging. There are any number of important technologies, like the magnetic bubble memory or the multi-chip module etc which echo the concept of the blivet; interesting, but not in the main stream.
If you like, we can work on the prose in hybrid circuit to include history like the magnetic bubble memory or the multi-chip module which were tried and discarded by major manufacturers like IBM. But a triode/ tetrode/ vacuum tube etc just isn't part of an article about the IC. -- Ancheta Wis 21:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's begin the discussion per the protocol. -- Ancheta Wis 05:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I mostly added it because the sections "Advances in integrated circuits" and "Classification and complexity" in length describes the same things. → A z a Toth 02:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The section Advances in integrated circuits should take into account emerging information represented by this news article, but no doubt related in greater detail and authority elsewhere: Markoff, John (27 January 2007). "Intel Says Chips Will Run Faster, Using Less Power". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-01-27. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 14:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Another advance, currently underway, is the creation of 3D ICs. This has been added to the ITRS roadmap and is the subject of numerous articles and conferences. A whole collection of references is available at http://3d-ic.org/literature.html . The difficulty in creating a wiki on this is that the definition of 3D IC is still fluid. -- Gretchenpatti ( talk) 15:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Not having received any opposition to teh above, I added 3D-IC to the ULSI/WSI/SOC section. Gretchenpatti ( talk) 17:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I note that the US patent 3138747, mentioned in the article, was not actually grated to Kilby, but to another TI engineer named Richard F. Steward. Is this a typo?
Furthermore, there is a German patent number 833366 which was granted to a Mr. Werner Jacobi on May 15th, 1952, describing the idea of manufacturing several amplifier stages on a single semiconductor by means of applying multiple electrodes to the surface of the semiconductor. It is a rather cursory patent, but nevertheless contains the basic idea of an integrated circuit, at about the same time when Dummer described the idea. Maybe it would be appropriate to include this in the list of inventors. -- Stefan heinzmann 11:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Patent #3,013,956 filed April 5, 1957 and granted in 1961 predates the Noyce/Kilby patent. It was filed by Frances and William Hugle for Baldwin Piano: "Methods of Etching Metals in the Platinum Group and Producing Printed Circuits Therefrom". The Hugles have not been credited in the development of the IC; why not? ---- wimerhome@yahoo.com
Please see: US 3226271, Hugle, Frances B. & William B. Hugle, "Semi-Conductive Films and Method of Producing Them", published March 29, 1956, issued December 28, 1965.
This patent was actually divided into two. The first set of claims were patented in 1961 (patent no. US 2994621) and the second set in 1965 (patent no. US 3226271).
In this patent(s), Frances describes how to make semiconductor devices connected by printed circuits, in other words, an integrated circuit. Though Frances does not use the term 'integrated circuit', this is the first description of how to actually grow semiconductor devices on a substrate incorporating a printed circuit (either added before the devices are grown or afterwards), the equipment she designed for this purpose and how to regulate the process depending upon what characteristics are desired.
Cheryl Hugle ( talk) 06:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
This article should at least acknowledge that the Frances Hugle patent(s) was the first patent application to describe how to make an integrated circuit. Otherwise, the invention section of this article is complete nonsense, historically speaking. Though her patent(s) were awarded after those granted to Kilby and Noyce, the fact that her application was submitted years before, demonstrates prior art and that she is the actual inventor of the IC. Cheryl Hugle ( talk) 04:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
The early monolithic integrated circuits consisted of a monocrystaline wafer on which active devices capable of amplification were formed. This patent is about forming polycrystaline devices on a substrate such as a glass slide. While they may have been active in the sense of being light sensitive, they weren't amplifiers in an normal sense of the word. I don't think they're really comparable.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 17:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
"ALL transistors/semiconductor devices are polycrystalline in that they are of BOTH n AND p type" is nonsense. In the 1960s amplifying devices and decent quality diodes were monocrystaline. Most of the modern ICs such as memories and microprocessors are still monocrystaline, except for the gate of MOS transistors. A few device types, such as some solar cells, are polycrystaline. Jc3s5h ( talk) 20:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
This edit is not supported by proper secondary sources and I am seeking dispute resolution through the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Jc3s5h ( talk) 20:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
The text states: This step was largely made possible by the codification of "design rules" for the CMOS technology used in VLSI chips, which made production of working devices much more of a systematic endeavour. (See the 1980 landmark text by Carver Mead and Lynn Conway referenced below.)
This seems (to me) to imply that Mead and Conway introduced the idea of design rules.
I did not remove the reference to Mead & Conway and design rules, (later restored) but I think the removal was correct. The idea of design rules pre-dates Mead & Conway. We certainly used design rules in 1975, and Mead and Conway was published in 1980. What Mead and Conway did in this area was introduce simplified "lambda based" rules. This made it easier to get started, but was ultimately a dead end. All modern processes have rules specified in absolute terms, and include values that are weird multiples of any underlying lambda.
Does anyone else have a different view of this? LouScheffer 06:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This whole section is bogus. Microprocessors do not need millions of transistors and were introduced in 1971. Mead and Conway is only relevant in terms of introducing more students to the field. Design rules were codified much earlier. Better tools and manufacturing were the keys. LouScheffer 06:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
"Resistive structures, meandering stripes of varying lengths, form the loads on the circuit." This sentence is a bit ambiguous to me. Exactly what does this mean. Does this mean that these structures are the only structures that causes electric load in the IC? -- Renier Maritz ( talk) 00:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
How many logic gates are implemented in a typical VLSI chip? Is it half the number of transistors? Anwar ( talk) 18:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that the amount of stuff one can pack onto a wafer, and the performance of that stuff, is limited by the minimum size of 2 crucial features that can be produced by the machinery in a fab. These are 2 crucial measurements involved in chip manufacturing are:
A recent edit [5] of racetrack memory mentions that "In most cases memory devices store one bit in any given location, so they are typically compared in terms of "cell size", a cell storing one bit. Cell size itself is given in units of F², where F is the design rule, representing usually the metal line width."
However, the 65 nanometer article implies that "F" is significantly larger than 65 nanometers.
People who use Magic (software) for circuit board design seem to use a measurement called "L" or "lambda" a lot [6] [7] [8].
This "integrated circuit" article mentions "Use of 65 nanometer or smaller chip manufacturing process.", but never mentions exactly what is 65 nanometers in size.
-- 68.0.124.33 ( talk) 05:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I moved the list of chip manufacturers to its own article titled, List of integrated circuit manufacturers. It was getting too long in its section in this article. That section now has a "For" tag directing readers to the new article. The articles, List_of_microchip_manufacturers, Microchip manufacturers and Integrated circuit manufacturers (among others), also redirects to the new article. If anyone has a problem with this change, please make your argument here, and, if it makes sense to those participating, we can move the list back. But, otherwise, I think this is good, considering the growing length of the list. ask123 ( talk) 08:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Would the development and later history of the integrated circuit been any different if Jack Kilby had never developed his IC in 1958? Given it was germanium, how much of Kilby's work was later utilized by TI in developing their chips? Were Robert Noyce and others at Fairchild even aware of his work while they were developing the first silicon chip? Was the "Noyce chip" a springboard for the IC revolution?
I would be interested in hearing the opinions of others more knowledgeable on this subject than I am.-- TL36 ( talk) 10:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
As soon as I read the following line in the article: "Jacobi discloses small and cheap hearing aids as typical industrial applications of his patent. A commercial use of his patent has not been reported." I recalled the conclusion of R.S. Williams's memristor article in Spectrum a year ago [9]: "Don’t forget that the transistor was lounging around as a mainly academic curiosity for a decade until 1956, when a killer app—the hearing aid—brought it into the marketplace." I'm somewhat confused, as R.S. Williams seems to be making the point that the first industrial application of the chip (& by that I assume he means a concrete one) was, indeed, the hearing aid. Anyone to elaborate further? Athenray ( talk) 09:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
As a high school physics student I found that this article contained a lot of terminolgy that was nintelligible to me. It would be helpful if the introduction of the article contained one or two sentences explaining the function of this device. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tessag2 ( talk • contribs) 06:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Tessag2 ( talk) 07:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
They get the pure quartz from a mine in North Carolina, namely the town of Spruce Pine...the pure quartz needed is found only in that one mine in the entire world, so it is very unique, and therefore should be mentioned in the article since it's of such great importance in the process of making an Integrated Circuit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.109.75 ( talk) 17:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Just removed the text saying a FAB costs $1bn to construct. This seems to be purely based on the fact that an Intel FAB cost $1.5bn, and there is no evidence whatsoever to say that a FAB cannot built for less, probably because whoever wrote that line is talking out their .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatos ( talk • contribs) 23:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
ref 5 "George Rostky, (n. d.), "Micromodules: the ultimate package", (HTML), EE Times, accessed July 8, 2008." returns a broken link Donhoraldo ( talk) 05:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The article says that in 1977 "Robert Noyce credits Lehovec in his article – "Microelectronics", Scientific American, September 1977, Volume 23, Number 3, pp. 63–9". Leslie Berlin's bio of Noyce confirms that Noyce knew what Lehovec was doing, so there's no surprise that in Dec. 1958 - Jan. 1959 Noyce trailed Lehovec by a month or two.
But then in 1976 Noyce denied any prior knowledge of Lehovec: "I was unaware of that at the time", period [12].
What happened? If, indeed, he changed his mind, what was the cause? Retired electrician ( talk) 13:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
highly motivated COI rant collapsed
|
---|
Whether flip chip or TAB, the inventor was Frances Hugle. "Ms. Francis Hugle (Hugle Industries of California) devised a package that used a flip chip directly bonded to a tiny flex circuit. Her "Flip Chip Strip" appears to be the first flex-based package and a close-up from the patent drawing is shown in Figure 5. A two-stage etching process, or step etching, produced the chip connection "bumps". The Hugle patent appears to be the first public documentation of Chip-on-Flex. The flex material was Dupont's polyester since Kapton was not available yet." http://www.allflexinc.com/PDF/Flip%20Chip%20on%20Flex%20-%20CircuiTree.pdf Yet any attempted mention in this article of the scientist and engineer who drove the industry for two decades and whose work continues to define it is summarily deleted. A few of her other seminal contributions: 1) First ever published description of how to fabricate a monolithic IC (quote below was approved for inclusion in this article by an administrator at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard yet again deleted with socket puppet claims, and though these were found to be baseless, the words have still not been reintroduced.) "Also in 1956, a patent application describing how to fabricate an IC was filed by Frances Hugle, US 3226271, Hugle, Frances B. & William B. Hugle, "Semi-Conductive Films and Method of Producing Them", published March 29, 1956. This patent was ultimately divided into two claim sets, the first set was awarded articles of patent in 1961 (patent no. US 2994621) and the second set in 1965 (patent no. US 3226271)." 2) First reduction to practice of Silicon Gate Technology (invented the microprocessor): US 3574007, Hugle, Frances B., "Method of Manufacturing Improved MIS Transistor Arrays", published 19 July, 1967 Cheryl Hugle ( talk) 18:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle Three different contributionsLou, please do not insert your comments directly into my text. Your comments do make statements that beg correction... so the ensuing discussions may become lengthy. Thus much of the cogency of the original text will be lost. You can copy those parts of my statement which you are referring to and then make your comment. Cheryl Hugle ( talk) 20:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle PackagingWhether flip chip or TAB, the inventor was Frances Hugle. "Ms. Francis Hugle (Hugle Industries of California) devised a package that used a flip chip directly bonded to a tiny flex circuit. Her "Flip Chip Strip" appears to be the first flex-based package and a close-up from the patent drawing is shown in Figure 5. A two-stage etching process, or step etching, produced the chip connection "bumps". The Hugle patent appears to be the first public documentation of Chip-on-Flex. The flex material was Dupont's polyester since Kapton was not available yet." http://www.allflexinc.com/PDF/Flip%20Chip%20on%20Flex%20-%20CircuiTree.pdf
Patents 3226271 and 29946211) First ever published description of how to fabricate a monolithic IC (quote below was approved for inclusion in this article by an administrator at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard yet again deleted with socket puppet claims, and though these were found to be baseless, the words have still not been reintroduced.) "Also in 1956, a patent application describing how to fabricate an IC was filed by Frances Hugle, US 3226271, Hugle, Frances B. & William B. Hugle, "Semi-Conductive Films and Method of Producing Them", published March 29, 1956. This patent was ultimately divided into two claim sets, the first set was awarded articles of patent in 1961 (patent no. US 2994621) and the second set in 1965 (patent no. US 3226271)."
Patent 35740072) First reduction to practice of Silicon Gate Technology (invented the microprocessor): US 3574007, Hugle, Frances B., "Method of Manufacturing Improved MIS Transistor Arrays", published 19 July, 1967
|
highly motivated COI rant collapsed
|
---|
Frances Hugle died of stomach cancer in 1968. Frances Hugle filed a patent on Silicon Gate Technology in 1967, the technology that was the raison d'etre of Intel. She also held a number of other valuable patents. If she had lived, she may have successfully challenged the dates of the Bell Lab SGT patent and other patents awarded following her death to companies such as GE. Shortly after she died, her family moved and the house was rented to Don Hoefler, a close friend and drinking buddy of William Hugle. Don's wife also soon developed stomach cancer and two years later, Fuji, the man who founded Hugle Electronics, Japan, reported that his wife (age 37) had also developed stomach cancer. When Fuji was asked how he felt about his wife's cancer he reportedly said, "I'm not worried, I already found someone to replace her." Considering the value of Frances Hugle's inventions, that these properties came immediately (at least nominally) under the control of William Hugle following her death and that two other women NOT within Frances Hugle's social circle but who were within William's social circle, the following statistics seem to be a smoking gun. Statistics for incidence and death from stomach cancer in women aged 35-44:
::0.0 percent died under age 20 ::1.2 percent died between 20 and 34 ::3.8 percent died between 35 and 44 ::8.8 percent died between 45 and 54 ::14.4 percent died between 55 and 64 ::24.5 percent died between 65 and 74 ::30.4 percent died between 75 and 84 ::16.9 percent died at 85 years of age or older.
So, if I understand correctly, approximately 1 in 1 million white women died between the ages of 35 and 44, the age range into which Frances fell at the time of her death. Though these incidence rates were higher in 1968 and higher yet in Japan, the likelihood of death by stomach cancer at such a young age was still statistically rare. If there is a 1 in a million chance that someone will die of a specific disease at a particular age, what is the probability that there will be three such cases at approximately the same time in one person's life? The number seems to be something greater than 1 in a quadrillion. Cheryl Hugle ( talk) 22:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheryl Hugle ( talk • contribs) 22:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC) |
i would like to see evidence for this statement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.75.31.116 ( talk) 20:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
In the very top section, above the contents list, there seems to be a discrepancy between two statements referring to the number of transistors which can be built into an IC. In the first paragraph, we have this:
"ICs can be made very compact, having up to several billion transistors and other electronic components in an area the size of a fingernail."
Then in the third paragraph, we have this:
"As of 2012, typical chip areas range from a few square millimeters to around 450 mm2, with up to 9 million transistors per mm2."
A fingernail is at best about one square centimeter, or maybe up to two if you count thumbs. If we are liberal in our estimation and allow for a large fingernail being 1.5 sq. cm., then at 9 million transistors per sq. mm., that makes no more than about 1.35 billion transistors per sq. sm., which is far short of the common understanding of the word "several" in this sort of context.
I suggest that both of these two statements be checked for currency and accuracy, and then reconciled. Perhaps "several billion" could simply be changed to "more than a billion"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtHLarson ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Since this article is the Selected Article, the example specs in the article should be more current than 5 years ago. Especially for a fast moving field like IC.
I'm not sure I'd characterize the 4000 series as the successors to 7400 line. My understanding was that there were uses where the 7400 would be preferable and others where the 4000 would be preferable. And when CMOS really did eclipse TTL, both of these were commonly getting replaced with ASICs. Ckape 06:44, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Any information on why a particular IC, say the 555 timer IC or any of the 74 ICs, is named so would be appreciated. Is it purely chosen by the manufacturer or is there some convention involved?
Since alot of devices have a name that starts with a lowercase I (e.g. iMac, iPod, ix86, etc.); does the I stand for integrated for those devices? -- SuperDude 22:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The text says "Noyce credited Kurt Lehovec of Sprague Electric for the principle of dielectric isolation caused by the action of a p-n junction (the diode) as a key concept behind the IC". I've never heard of that principle, and a search using Google only retrieves exactly the same sentence. It seems to me to make little sense - dielectrics are insulators, and in IC fab we would expect dielectric isolation to be caused by an oxide, nitride or similar layer on top of a conducting layer. Can anyone shed light on whether this principle really exists? -- Phil Holmes 10:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Just done the search and come up with http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=3,029,366.WKU.&OS=PN/3,029,366&RS=PN/3,029,366 which is the full text of the patent. I've OCRed it and it only mentions dielectric once - in a piece on capacitors. Whilst I accept that a pn junction can function as a dielectric, I maintain that this is unusual usage. It seems to me that Noyce actually credits Lehovec with the invention of pn junction isolation in ICs.
I've tried to find the Scientific American article in full and failed - the best I can find is: "In an article entitled ""Microelectronics", published in "Scientific American", September 1977 Volume 23, Number 3, pp. 63-9, he wrote:
"The integrated circuit, as we conceived and developed it at Fairchild Semiconductor in 1959, accomplishes the separation and interconnection of transistors and other circuit elements electrically rather than physically. The separation is accomplished by introducing pn diodes, or rectifiers, which allow current to flow in only one direction. The technique was patented by Kurt Lehovec at the Sprague Electric Company"." at http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1997/sep/m01-033.shtml
Again - no mention of the principle of dielectric isolation. -- Phil Holmes 20:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
To be fair,
Jean Hoerni deserves equal billing.
Ancheta Wis 11:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
One of the fundamental features of silicon as a semiconductor is that it is easy to grow SiO2 on it, and that this glass layer forms a reliable barrier to dopants, and is (relatively) easily etched with good fidelity. I'm convinced that this is one of the main reasons why silicon dominates IC fab (tho' there are others - mechanical strength and convenient band gap included). I feeel strongly tempted to write a "why silicon" section, but I'm not sure where to put it. It could go somewhere in this article (but where?) or in the fabrication article, or somewhere else. Any thoughts? -- Phil Holmes 08:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Were these the names given at the time? The article makes it sound like that, though I doubt it. The MSIs were probably considered very high-tech at the time, not "medium," just like our most advanced CPUs today will seem pathetic in a few years. Could that be clarified? Twilight Realm 02:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Something that has puzzled me for a long time: why are these slithers of silicon called dice when they don't at all look like dice? Please help to unpuzzle me! Thanks, -- Maikel 16:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Does the microchip nickname come from the maker of PIC's name: Microchip Technology? -- Josh Atkins ( talk - contribs) 15:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been a working engineer in Silicon Valley (er, Santa Clara valley) since the latter 1970s. I spent ten years, for example, at MIPS Computer Systems and SGI. The usage "microchip" is so completely absent from the vernacular of our industry that its utterance can be reliably used as an indicator that the speaker is an alien; generally, some kind of journalist (the context of the not-at-all informidable Microchip Technology (formerly, GI) accepted). Rt3368 ( talk) 19:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The term artwork has been in use on engineering drawings for electronic circuits, including printed circuits, since before the invention of the IC. I object to the use of the phrase 'silicon artwork' solely for those constructs which might be construed as subject to artistic license. Hence I reverted. Real estate on a chip is valuable and subject to signoff. A chip such as a microprocessor is constructed by teams of hundreds of people. It would be difficult to get by a review. It is true that custom chips might be built by only a few minds, and that it is cheaper to build chips which might share a wafer in a custom run, and that it would then be possible to permit artistic license, but the occurrence would definitely not be on an industrial scale. -- Ancheta Wis 22:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
An already existing page Chip art, covers this topic more thoroughly than Silicon Doodling. Hence I replaced Silicon Doodling with a re-direct, and changed the link. LouScheffer 02:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Due to the line "Each device is tested before packaging. The wafer is then cut into small rectangles called 'die'. Each die is then connected into a package using aluminium (or occasionally gold) wires which are welded to pads, usually found around the edge of the die". Actually it is die or dice?
The definition die=singular; dice=plural is correct. However, the original sentence wasn't good English - imagine if it had said "cut into small rectangles called square" - it should be "cut into small rectangles called squares". So I've made it "dice" in that sentence and put a small parenthetic comment about die/dice. -- Phil Holmes 13:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Dice is clearly the plural form of die when you're playing Craps or Yahtzee, but not when you're talking about integrated circuits cut from a wafer. According to several dictionary entries [2] and even other wikipedia articles [3] [4], the correct plural form of die is "dies" in this context. My best explanation for this is that the term "die" was probably borrowed from the metalworking industry, where repeated stamps or punches are commonly called "dies". ~ Fanblade 20:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It is important not to Dice spread meanings beyond usefulness. An IC, per history of the term, consists of a monolithic circuit. The current dual-core CPUs still qualify because they still use the same silicon; the multi-die flash memories do not qualify because they are separate chips in a hybrid package. Same with the flash memories packaged a separate USB interface chip -- its hybrid packaging.Dice
When matched transistors are an important consideration, the processing of an IC can provide intrinsically matched components without preselection. There is no poiDicnt in calling tube circuit an IC. This just makes the term a curiosity.
The historical use of a separate glass assembly to hold multiple filaments calls to mind the use of chimneys to vent multiple flues, in Europe, thus avoiding the chimney tax. Interesting, but of small economic importance, compared to the huge stream of improvements on the IC.
When you examine the history of the hybrid circuit, look at the packaging. There are any number of important technologies, like the magnetic bubble memory or the multi-chip module etc which echo the concept of the blivet; interesting, but not in the main stream.
If you like, we can work on the prose in hybrid circuit to include history like the magnetic bubble memory or the multi-chip module which were tried and discarded by major manufacturers like IBM. But a triode/ tetrode/ vacuum tube etc just isn't part of an article about the IC. -- Ancheta Wis 21:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's begin the discussion per the protocol. -- Ancheta Wis 05:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I mostly added it because the sections "Advances in integrated circuits" and "Classification and complexity" in length describes the same things. → A z a Toth 02:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The section Advances in integrated circuits should take into account emerging information represented by this news article, but no doubt related in greater detail and authority elsewhere: Markoff, John (27 January 2007). "Intel Says Chips Will Run Faster, Using Less Power". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-01-27. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 14:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Another advance, currently underway, is the creation of 3D ICs. This has been added to the ITRS roadmap and is the subject of numerous articles and conferences. A whole collection of references is available at http://3d-ic.org/literature.html . The difficulty in creating a wiki on this is that the definition of 3D IC is still fluid. -- Gretchenpatti ( talk) 15:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Not having received any opposition to teh above, I added 3D-IC to the ULSI/WSI/SOC section. Gretchenpatti ( talk) 17:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I note that the US patent 3138747, mentioned in the article, was not actually grated to Kilby, but to another TI engineer named Richard F. Steward. Is this a typo?
Furthermore, there is a German patent number 833366 which was granted to a Mr. Werner Jacobi on May 15th, 1952, describing the idea of manufacturing several amplifier stages on a single semiconductor by means of applying multiple electrodes to the surface of the semiconductor. It is a rather cursory patent, but nevertheless contains the basic idea of an integrated circuit, at about the same time when Dummer described the idea. Maybe it would be appropriate to include this in the list of inventors. -- Stefan heinzmann 11:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Patent #3,013,956 filed April 5, 1957 and granted in 1961 predates the Noyce/Kilby patent. It was filed by Frances and William Hugle for Baldwin Piano: "Methods of Etching Metals in the Platinum Group and Producing Printed Circuits Therefrom". The Hugles have not been credited in the development of the IC; why not? ---- wimerhome@yahoo.com
Please see: US 3226271, Hugle, Frances B. & William B. Hugle, "Semi-Conductive Films and Method of Producing Them", published March 29, 1956, issued December 28, 1965.
This patent was actually divided into two. The first set of claims were patented in 1961 (patent no. US 2994621) and the second set in 1965 (patent no. US 3226271).
In this patent(s), Frances describes how to make semiconductor devices connected by printed circuits, in other words, an integrated circuit. Though Frances does not use the term 'integrated circuit', this is the first description of how to actually grow semiconductor devices on a substrate incorporating a printed circuit (either added before the devices are grown or afterwards), the equipment she designed for this purpose and how to regulate the process depending upon what characteristics are desired.
Cheryl Hugle ( talk) 06:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
This article should at least acknowledge that the Frances Hugle patent(s) was the first patent application to describe how to make an integrated circuit. Otherwise, the invention section of this article is complete nonsense, historically speaking. Though her patent(s) were awarded after those granted to Kilby and Noyce, the fact that her application was submitted years before, demonstrates prior art and that she is the actual inventor of the IC. Cheryl Hugle ( talk) 04:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
The early monolithic integrated circuits consisted of a monocrystaline wafer on which active devices capable of amplification were formed. This patent is about forming polycrystaline devices on a substrate such as a glass slide. While they may have been active in the sense of being light sensitive, they weren't amplifiers in an normal sense of the word. I don't think they're really comparable.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 17:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
"ALL transistors/semiconductor devices are polycrystalline in that they are of BOTH n AND p type" is nonsense. In the 1960s amplifying devices and decent quality diodes were monocrystaline. Most of the modern ICs such as memories and microprocessors are still monocrystaline, except for the gate of MOS transistors. A few device types, such as some solar cells, are polycrystaline. Jc3s5h ( talk) 20:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
This edit is not supported by proper secondary sources and I am seeking dispute resolution through the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Jc3s5h ( talk) 20:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
The text states: This step was largely made possible by the codification of "design rules" for the CMOS technology used in VLSI chips, which made production of working devices much more of a systematic endeavour. (See the 1980 landmark text by Carver Mead and Lynn Conway referenced below.)
This seems (to me) to imply that Mead and Conway introduced the idea of design rules.
I did not remove the reference to Mead & Conway and design rules, (later restored) but I think the removal was correct. The idea of design rules pre-dates Mead & Conway. We certainly used design rules in 1975, and Mead and Conway was published in 1980. What Mead and Conway did in this area was introduce simplified "lambda based" rules. This made it easier to get started, but was ultimately a dead end. All modern processes have rules specified in absolute terms, and include values that are weird multiples of any underlying lambda.
Does anyone else have a different view of this? LouScheffer 06:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This whole section is bogus. Microprocessors do not need millions of transistors and were introduced in 1971. Mead and Conway is only relevant in terms of introducing more students to the field. Design rules were codified much earlier. Better tools and manufacturing were the keys. LouScheffer 06:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
"Resistive structures, meandering stripes of varying lengths, form the loads on the circuit." This sentence is a bit ambiguous to me. Exactly what does this mean. Does this mean that these structures are the only structures that causes electric load in the IC? -- Renier Maritz ( talk) 00:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
How many logic gates are implemented in a typical VLSI chip? Is it half the number of transistors? Anwar ( talk) 18:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that the amount of stuff one can pack onto a wafer, and the performance of that stuff, is limited by the minimum size of 2 crucial features that can be produced by the machinery in a fab. These are 2 crucial measurements involved in chip manufacturing are:
A recent edit [5] of racetrack memory mentions that "In most cases memory devices store one bit in any given location, so they are typically compared in terms of "cell size", a cell storing one bit. Cell size itself is given in units of F², where F is the design rule, representing usually the metal line width."
However, the 65 nanometer article implies that "F" is significantly larger than 65 nanometers.
People who use Magic (software) for circuit board design seem to use a measurement called "L" or "lambda" a lot [6] [7] [8].
This "integrated circuit" article mentions "Use of 65 nanometer or smaller chip manufacturing process.", but never mentions exactly what is 65 nanometers in size.
-- 68.0.124.33 ( talk) 05:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I moved the list of chip manufacturers to its own article titled, List of integrated circuit manufacturers. It was getting too long in its section in this article. That section now has a "For" tag directing readers to the new article. The articles, List_of_microchip_manufacturers, Microchip manufacturers and Integrated circuit manufacturers (among others), also redirects to the new article. If anyone has a problem with this change, please make your argument here, and, if it makes sense to those participating, we can move the list back. But, otherwise, I think this is good, considering the growing length of the list. ask123 ( talk) 08:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Would the development and later history of the integrated circuit been any different if Jack Kilby had never developed his IC in 1958? Given it was germanium, how much of Kilby's work was later utilized by TI in developing their chips? Were Robert Noyce and others at Fairchild even aware of his work while they were developing the first silicon chip? Was the "Noyce chip" a springboard for the IC revolution?
I would be interested in hearing the opinions of others more knowledgeable on this subject than I am.-- TL36 ( talk) 10:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
As soon as I read the following line in the article: "Jacobi discloses small and cheap hearing aids as typical industrial applications of his patent. A commercial use of his patent has not been reported." I recalled the conclusion of R.S. Williams's memristor article in Spectrum a year ago [9]: "Don’t forget that the transistor was lounging around as a mainly academic curiosity for a decade until 1956, when a killer app—the hearing aid—brought it into the marketplace." I'm somewhat confused, as R.S. Williams seems to be making the point that the first industrial application of the chip (& by that I assume he means a concrete one) was, indeed, the hearing aid. Anyone to elaborate further? Athenray ( talk) 09:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
As a high school physics student I found that this article contained a lot of terminolgy that was nintelligible to me. It would be helpful if the introduction of the article contained one or two sentences explaining the function of this device. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tessag2 ( talk • contribs) 06:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Tessag2 ( talk) 07:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
They get the pure quartz from a mine in North Carolina, namely the town of Spruce Pine...the pure quartz needed is found only in that one mine in the entire world, so it is very unique, and therefore should be mentioned in the article since it's of such great importance in the process of making an Integrated Circuit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.109.75 ( talk) 17:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Just removed the text saying a FAB costs $1bn to construct. This seems to be purely based on the fact that an Intel FAB cost $1.5bn, and there is no evidence whatsoever to say that a FAB cannot built for less, probably because whoever wrote that line is talking out their .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatos ( talk • contribs) 23:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
ref 5 "George Rostky, (n. d.), "Micromodules: the ultimate package", (HTML), EE Times, accessed July 8, 2008." returns a broken link Donhoraldo ( talk) 05:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The article says that in 1977 "Robert Noyce credits Lehovec in his article – "Microelectronics", Scientific American, September 1977, Volume 23, Number 3, pp. 63–9". Leslie Berlin's bio of Noyce confirms that Noyce knew what Lehovec was doing, so there's no surprise that in Dec. 1958 - Jan. 1959 Noyce trailed Lehovec by a month or two.
But then in 1976 Noyce denied any prior knowledge of Lehovec: "I was unaware of that at the time", period [12].
What happened? If, indeed, he changed his mind, what was the cause? Retired electrician ( talk) 13:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
highly motivated COI rant collapsed
|
---|
Whether flip chip or TAB, the inventor was Frances Hugle. "Ms. Francis Hugle (Hugle Industries of California) devised a package that used a flip chip directly bonded to a tiny flex circuit. Her "Flip Chip Strip" appears to be the first flex-based package and a close-up from the patent drawing is shown in Figure 5. A two-stage etching process, or step etching, produced the chip connection "bumps". The Hugle patent appears to be the first public documentation of Chip-on-Flex. The flex material was Dupont's polyester since Kapton was not available yet." http://www.allflexinc.com/PDF/Flip%20Chip%20on%20Flex%20-%20CircuiTree.pdf Yet any attempted mention in this article of the scientist and engineer who drove the industry for two decades and whose work continues to define it is summarily deleted. A few of her other seminal contributions: 1) First ever published description of how to fabricate a monolithic IC (quote below was approved for inclusion in this article by an administrator at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard yet again deleted with socket puppet claims, and though these were found to be baseless, the words have still not been reintroduced.) "Also in 1956, a patent application describing how to fabricate an IC was filed by Frances Hugle, US 3226271, Hugle, Frances B. & William B. Hugle, "Semi-Conductive Films and Method of Producing Them", published March 29, 1956. This patent was ultimately divided into two claim sets, the first set was awarded articles of patent in 1961 (patent no. US 2994621) and the second set in 1965 (patent no. US 3226271)." 2) First reduction to practice of Silicon Gate Technology (invented the microprocessor): US 3574007, Hugle, Frances B., "Method of Manufacturing Improved MIS Transistor Arrays", published 19 July, 1967 Cheryl Hugle ( talk) 18:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle Three different contributionsLou, please do not insert your comments directly into my text. Your comments do make statements that beg correction... so the ensuing discussions may become lengthy. Thus much of the cogency of the original text will be lost. You can copy those parts of my statement which you are referring to and then make your comment. Cheryl Hugle ( talk) 20:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle PackagingWhether flip chip or TAB, the inventor was Frances Hugle. "Ms. Francis Hugle (Hugle Industries of California) devised a package that used a flip chip directly bonded to a tiny flex circuit. Her "Flip Chip Strip" appears to be the first flex-based package and a close-up from the patent drawing is shown in Figure 5. A two-stage etching process, or step etching, produced the chip connection "bumps". The Hugle patent appears to be the first public documentation of Chip-on-Flex. The flex material was Dupont's polyester since Kapton was not available yet." http://www.allflexinc.com/PDF/Flip%20Chip%20on%20Flex%20-%20CircuiTree.pdf
Patents 3226271 and 29946211) First ever published description of how to fabricate a monolithic IC (quote below was approved for inclusion in this article by an administrator at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard yet again deleted with socket puppet claims, and though these were found to be baseless, the words have still not been reintroduced.) "Also in 1956, a patent application describing how to fabricate an IC was filed by Frances Hugle, US 3226271, Hugle, Frances B. & William B. Hugle, "Semi-Conductive Films and Method of Producing Them", published March 29, 1956. This patent was ultimately divided into two claim sets, the first set was awarded articles of patent in 1961 (patent no. US 2994621) and the second set in 1965 (patent no. US 3226271)."
Patent 35740072) First reduction to practice of Silicon Gate Technology (invented the microprocessor): US 3574007, Hugle, Frances B., "Method of Manufacturing Improved MIS Transistor Arrays", published 19 July, 1967
|
highly motivated COI rant collapsed
|
---|
Frances Hugle died of stomach cancer in 1968. Frances Hugle filed a patent on Silicon Gate Technology in 1967, the technology that was the raison d'etre of Intel. She also held a number of other valuable patents. If she had lived, she may have successfully challenged the dates of the Bell Lab SGT patent and other patents awarded following her death to companies such as GE. Shortly after she died, her family moved and the house was rented to Don Hoefler, a close friend and drinking buddy of William Hugle. Don's wife also soon developed stomach cancer and two years later, Fuji, the man who founded Hugle Electronics, Japan, reported that his wife (age 37) had also developed stomach cancer. When Fuji was asked how he felt about his wife's cancer he reportedly said, "I'm not worried, I already found someone to replace her." Considering the value of Frances Hugle's inventions, that these properties came immediately (at least nominally) under the control of William Hugle following her death and that two other women NOT within Frances Hugle's social circle but who were within William's social circle, the following statistics seem to be a smoking gun. Statistics for incidence and death from stomach cancer in women aged 35-44:
::0.0 percent died under age 20 ::1.2 percent died between 20 and 34 ::3.8 percent died between 35 and 44 ::8.8 percent died between 45 and 54 ::14.4 percent died between 55 and 64 ::24.5 percent died between 65 and 74 ::30.4 percent died between 75 and 84 ::16.9 percent died at 85 years of age or older.
So, if I understand correctly, approximately 1 in 1 million white women died between the ages of 35 and 44, the age range into which Frances fell at the time of her death. Though these incidence rates were higher in 1968 and higher yet in Japan, the likelihood of death by stomach cancer at such a young age was still statistically rare. If there is a 1 in a million chance that someone will die of a specific disease at a particular age, what is the probability that there will be three such cases at approximately the same time in one person's life? The number seems to be something greater than 1 in a quadrillion. Cheryl Hugle ( talk) 22:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheryl Hugle ( talk • contribs) 22:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC) |
i would like to see evidence for this statement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.75.31.116 ( talk) 20:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
In the very top section, above the contents list, there seems to be a discrepancy between two statements referring to the number of transistors which can be built into an IC. In the first paragraph, we have this:
"ICs can be made very compact, having up to several billion transistors and other electronic components in an area the size of a fingernail."
Then in the third paragraph, we have this:
"As of 2012, typical chip areas range from a few square millimeters to around 450 mm2, with up to 9 million transistors per mm2."
A fingernail is at best about one square centimeter, or maybe up to two if you count thumbs. If we are liberal in our estimation and allow for a large fingernail being 1.5 sq. cm., then at 9 million transistors per sq. mm., that makes no more than about 1.35 billion transistors per sq. sm., which is far short of the common understanding of the word "several" in this sort of context.
I suggest that both of these two statements be checked for currency and accuracy, and then reconciled. Perhaps "several billion" could simply be changed to "more than a billion"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtHLarson ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)