SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
http://www.righto.com/2020/06/die-shrink-how-intel-scaled-down-8086.html
The revolutionary Intel 8086 microprocessor was introduced 42 years ago this month so I've been studying its die.1 I came across two 8086 dies with different sizes, which reveal details of how a die shrink works. The concept of a die shrink is that as technology improved, a manufacturer could shrink the silicon die, reducing costs and improving performance. But there's more to it than simply scaling down the whole die. Although the internal circuitry can be directly scaled down,2 external-facing features can't shrink as easily. For instance, the bonding pads need a minimum size so wires can be attached, and the power-distribution traces must be large enough for the current. The result is that Intel scaled the interior of the 8086 without change, but the circuitry and pads around the edge of the chip were redesigned.
The photo below shows an 8086 chip from 1979, and a version with a visibly smaller die from 1986.3 (The ceramic lids have been removed to show the silicon dies inside.) In the updated 8086, the internal circuitry was scaled to about 64% of the original size by length, so it took 40% of the original area. The die as a whole wasn't reduced as much; it was about 54% of the original area. (The chip's package was unchanged, the 40-pin DIP package commonly used for microprocessors of that era.)
(Score: 3, Funny) by fustakrakich on Sunday June 28 2020, @09:45PM (5 children)
Somebody mad at their psychiatrist?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 28 2020, @09:49PM (1 child)
Yes [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Sunday June 28 2020, @10:28PM
Ha, I enjoyed reading that book when it came out.
(Score: 3, Touché) by looorg on Sunday June 28 2020, @10:21PM
Perhaps it's German?
(Score: 2) by driverless on Monday June 29 2020, @01:35AM (1 child)
Proof yet again that letting them out into the community and not checking that they're taking their meds is a mistake, even if it's cheaper than keeping them in care.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2020, @02:09PM
That's a common misconception. Closing down the large psychiatric hospitals was a good move. The problem was that they did it to shift spending from the feds to the state government and failed to ensure that the people being let out of the institutions were able to find space in smaller group homes that could more effectively provide treatment. The states for their part, tended to not make up the funding shortfall that resulted and the end result was a bunch of people being cutoff from any reasonable mental health treatment. To make matters worse, that was about the time that the feds decided to patch over the health care access hole by requiring charity care helping to cause the skyrocketing medical costs that we have today.
This is just one example of how the neo-liberals have shifted the tax burden onto the poor. The state tax schemes tend to be rather regressive and hit poorer people harder than the rich.