Will Graphene Chips Be 1000 Times Faster?

GrapheneGraphene (the carbon found in pencils) can be used to create circuits that are almost superconducting, potentially speeding electronic components by as much as 1000 times, researchers have discovered. (That’s three terahertz — a jump of three orders of magnitude!)

“We’re talking about that smartphone in your pocket having a thousand times the computing power of your desktop PC, but using no more power than it does right now.”

This could ultimately provide the processing power necessary for real-time speech-to-text translation, augmented reality, high-speed DNA sequencing, and even smarter robots. And because IBM has already created a working 30 GHz device using graphene transistors, graphene “could begin making its way into computers as early as 2012…and almost certainly by 2020.”

6 Comments on "Will Graphene Chips Be 1000 Times Faster?"

  1. Graphene isn't the carbon found in pencils. Graphite is found in pencils.

  2. chinagreenelvis | May 5, 2010 at 1:14 pm |

    Graphene is the basic building block of graphite, so it is indeed used in pencils.

  3. The author of this article knows nothing about the potential applications of fast processing power, in fact we already have real time speech to text, and have had it for years. Robotic intelligence has nearly nothing to do with processing speed, and everything to do with clever programming, and the algorithms to create predictive models.

    Please don't try to feed us bullshit about how this will change everything, as this has nothing to do with being able to do things that are impossible on current chips, and everything to do with changing the price and speed of CPU cycles.

    The biggest impact of superfast chips should be in the fields where hardware costs significantly outweigh software costs, like in large datacenters, simulation, and rendering.

  4. wow, this is absolutely amazing. Can't wait.

  5. Anonymous | May 6, 2010 at 1:09 pm |

    Could the author of this article be any more clueless?

  6. Could the author of this article be any more clueless?

Comments are closed.