Talk:Very-large-scale integration

Electronics Low‑importance

	Electronics portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Integrated circuit#VLSI and Very-large-scale integration

Why do we have both Integrated circuit#VLSI and Very-large-scale integration? Noel 16:13, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Integrated circuit#VLSI explains the basic differences and advances in IC technology, whereas their individual pages (VLSI, SoC) go into more detail than would be appropriate in their section of Integrated circuit. This is a fairly common practice on Wikipedia. Boffy b 12:18, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

The Integrated circuit#VLSI should be a short summary of the Very-large-scale integration article. For more details on this practice, see the Wikipedia:Summary style guideline. --DavidCary (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

tools

Could someone put a list of popular layout software tools? Thanks. 66.75.49.213 23:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some tools are listed near the end of the electronic design automation article. Should this VLSI article mention that that article has the tools? --75.37.227.177 14:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

one such tool, open source, HERB, is in development by Alliance VLSI project , may not be usable, but its a start. HERB[1] --Gartral (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

problems

Came from the Quantum tunnelling page and was surprised there was nothing about it or any other potentional exteriors (heat, arcs)

poda patti

vlsi

Very-large-scale integration (VLSI) is the process of creating integrated circuits by combining thousands of transistor-based circuits into a single chip. VLSI began in the 1970s when complex semiconductor and communication technologies were being developed.

The first semiconductor chips held one transistor each. Subsequent advances added more and more transistors, and as a consequence more individual functions or systems were integrated over time. The microprocessor is a VLSI device.

The first "generation" of computers relied on vacuum tubes. Then came discrete semiconductor devices, followed by integrated circuits. The first Small-Scale Integration (SSI) ICs had small numbers of devices on a single chip — diodes, transistors, resistors and capacitors (no inductors though), making it possible to fabricate one or more logic gates on a single device. The fourth generation consisted of Large-Scale Integration (LSI), i.e. systems with at least a thousand logic gates. The natural successor to LSI was VLSI (many tens of thousands of gates on a single chip). Current technology has moved far past this mark and today's microprocessors have many millions of gates and hundreds of millions of individual transistors.

As of mid-2006, billion-transistor processors are just on the horizon, with the first being Intel's Montecito Itanium Server. This is expected to become more commonplace as semiconductor fabrication moves from the current generation of 90 nanometer (90 nm) processes to the next 65 nm and 45 nm generations.

At one time, there was an effort to name and calibrate various levels of large-scale integration above VLSI. Terms like Ultra-large-scale Integration (ULSI) were used. But the huge number of gates and transistors available on common devices has rendered such fine distinctions moot. Terms suggesting more-than-VLSI levels of integration are no longer in widespread use. Even VLSI is now somewhat quaint, given the common assumption that all microprocessors are VLSI or better.

merge

The VHSIC article currently claims "VHSIC" is another, less common, name for "VLSI". So I think they should all be in the same article, like Puma and Mountain Lion are both in the same article. --75.37.227.177 14:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what it claims. VHSIC is a much more narrow term referring to a specific US government program. There's probably enough info out there to write an adequate article on it, but it should not be attempted as part of the VLSI article. Dicklyon 15:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See for example this book, or this. Dicklyon 15:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Custom Integrated Circuit Conference WLU (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Challenges

I've added a section for the challenges faced by current VLSI designers. If someone can tidy up and elaborate on this, it'd be great. Fire (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LSI

Article says: Now known retrospectively as "small-scale integration" (SSI), improvements in technique led to devices with hundreds of logic gates, known as large-scale integration (LSI), i.e. systems with at least a thousand logic gates. Pretty bad sentence. To fix it, need to know which is LSI: hundreds of gates or thousands? 60.240.207.146 (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's AFU. The version from a few years ago had it a bit better (LSI = thousands). Here is the diff where it got mangled by User:Maury Markowitz. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KARL

In the Structured Design section, the name of hardware description language mentioned, KARL, had been a link. However, it linked to the page KARL, which appears to be a radio station. I removed the link, but I don't know enough about the topic to know if KARL is the wrong name, or if there's a place on Wikipedia that this should link to. Someone might want to look at. --129.2.218.250 (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wiring by abutment

The article linked for abutment primarily discusses this term in reference to civil engineering and architecture (possibly dentistry?), making it potentially unclear at first glance as to the meaning in an electrical engineering context. 208.85.190.19 (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

criticism

As frequent in many wikipedia articles, the above plugs several products and never once describes the thing of it's topic.

VLSI (very large scale integration) was the very next step after LSI, with no in-betweens. A worker in a U.S.A. chip factory, with no college degree or formal study (though a self studied factory worker, as many were at the time), invented VLSI (excuse me i cannot remember his name).

He worked on the factory floor where part of his job was to to skip a pool of hot liquid silicon with a bar or rod (much like iron factory practice do).

He knew by company information the limit of the number of transisitors on the chip (LSI) was directly related to the purity of the silicon. LSI allowed perhaps a few thousand of transistors at best. His discovery was that if sinusoidal waves "wave tank" were made in the hot liquid tank of silicon that impurities would gradually be trasported (and removable). Impurities impossible for a rude instrument dragged across the top to remove, impurities impossible to see. He had learned this trick from working in another factory where he learned the technique was used in an unrelated non-metal product - and was smart enough to realize it applied to liquid silicon - and infact it did.

Almost immediately the company was able to put millions of transistors on this newly pure silicon and it was dubbed "VLSI" (compared to only a few thousand for LSI, a major notable leap). There was not any articles at the time which did not mention this man or his invention as the beginning of VLSI. One might see old Harvard vector VLSI circuit software whose README (documentation) mention it passingly, one might see an article on it on a BBS; it was pervasive knowlege at the time.

Because he was employed by the company, the company owned the patent, though he did receive appluad and some benefits for the discovery. Apparently not in wikipedia historic rewrites, not yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.202.186 (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

information was deleted from article

The leap to VLSI was by an "un-educated" floor worker in the VLI factory (Texax). From experience in another factory (molten metal work) he realized that producing waves in the alreayd molten Silicon tank, and skimming, removes move contaminants than skimming alone. The purity gained allowed many times the transistors as previous

the above was common knowlege in the 80's - people talked allot about VLSI back then when it was new

another source, publicized TV with images of the factory floor worker was on:

"James Burke - How The Universe Changed" (tail of the series). now so you know i'm not pulling this out of a hat let me explain the series and why the above was in the series...

the series surveys major inventions man relies on (ie, nylon), when and who did it: often citing that who created it discovered one of the most "necessary" inventions by luck (and *realized* it), while most of the rest were discovered by scientists who were looking for something and found it by mistake. The series end by an investigation into how deeply man is dependant upon "chips and software" for survival of the masses and caps off the series with a foreboding warning about reliance upon something which may be attacked or fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.204.96 (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of ...

previously i added a short note about VLSI and that it was a floor worker who caused the great leap from LSI to VLSI (a several time the transitor factor jump and sorely needed at the time) (he was not well compensated, as he was employed when he found it, company kept the discovery)

LSI is NOT the same as VLSI they are several factors of transistors apart, and the "discovery" was years apart and not by the same person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.204.96 (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Only objection appears to be soundly refuted. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 17:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very-large-scale integration → Very Large Scale Integration – Wiki title should be consistent with IEEE naming conventions and professionally published articles, see https://www.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-org/ieee/web/org/conferences/style_references_manual.pdf for example of naming conventions. Boopkid (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This idea would break the adherence to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, which recognizes that it is tiring to read capitalized titles. The article titles have the same capitalization as their appearance in the encyclopedia articles, which are meant to be extensively cross-linked. Try reading a document from the Pentagon to see what I mean. The documents become a thicket of UpPeR CAsE lEtTers. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 10:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOS: does not contain the word tiring (or tired, or tire, or exhausting). Perhaps you meant MOS:CAPS? That page does not contain those words, either. Perhaps you were thinking of all caps, in which case I might agree with you about the "tiring", but that does not pertain here. What MOS:CAPS does say, however, is that phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia, and based on the data, that argues in favor of the move. Mathglot (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

support move – per MOS:CAPS and the data showing that the majority of English sources prefer the initial-caps version by about 2–1. Mathglot (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Diopsis.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated Term?

A lot of new engineers consider 'VLSI' to be an outdated term because the techniques it refers to are now for methods of stacking SMALLER groups of transistors than maximally allowed with other tech. Should there be a section about that? CessnaMan1989 (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]