3 ms·
3 nm is nuts. I used to perform molecular dynamics simulations in boxes that were 10 nm on each side. You can count the atoms lined up within 3 nm of space.
by Xcelerate 8y ago
3 nm is nuts. I used to perform molecular dynamics simulations in boxes that were 10 nm on each side. You can count the atoms lined up within 3 nm of space.
- 6nf 8y ago3 nanometers equals about 6 silicon atoms in a crystal lattice!
- ianai 8y agoMy gut instinct from reading about quantum computation is that we need a new paradigm, or several. Maybe it makes less sense to be trying to do binary logic at that scale, for instance. Or maybe we should be engineering at a quasiparticle level.
- imtringued 8y agoNothing about 3nm is 3nm.
- Taek 8y agoThe actual gate pitch of a 7nm process is 54nm, and the interconnect pitch is 40nm. Though the name is "7nm", it's far from it.
- daveguy 8y agoThe way I (not EE) understand it the size of a process considers just one dimension. So transistors can be tightly packed along that axis and less tightly packed along the other axis of a wafer. Have the gate pitch / interconnect in the range of 40-54nm hit a more difficult limit than the 7nm aspect? It seems like there is significant space for improvement in those dimensions where you could still double density. Should process nodes be referred to as 7nm x 54nm where new generations drop gate pitch too? Is there something inherent to the process that fixes the other dimensions when you have a "7nm" node for that particular metric?
- ianai 8y agoI’m not entirely sure you and OP are talking about the same things. But you both probably knew that.