From one of the interview subjects right in the article: "Area still scales in strong double digits..." That ought to disprove the headline all on its own. The

From one of the interview subjects right in the article: "Area still scales in strong double digits..." That ought to disprove the headline all on its own. The starting point in the article seems sensible, but unremarkable: 2nm is not inherently valuable. It needs to pay out in smaller chips, lower power usage, faster per-transistor speeds, or lower cost per FLOP. But the article is written like a shrink is only valuable if it does all of those things, when in reality it's still worthwhile to get any of them. Assuming the article is accurate, per-transistor speeds may stall and cost per FLOP may even move backwards (that's not new though - just a question of how fast cost savings catch up with new processes). Power savings might slow, but look substantial at 7nm and 5nm and there's no pitch for why 2nm would differ. Meanwhile, area scaling is still a major improvement, just as you'd expect. Perhaps that won't be reason enough for desktops and servers, but that's been an open question before now. Lowering minimum chip size creates qualitative change in smartphones, IoT hardware, sensors, etc. It's in that "world market for five computers" vein of only looking at the use of a development in already-extant devices. As a last note, it's downright sleazy for the article to write "'...It’s not clear what will remain at 5 nm,' said Penzes, suggesting that 5-nm nodes may only be extensions of 7 nm." From the first half of his quote, Penzes is clearly saying that it's not clear which advances will persist through 5nm, not that it's unclear whether any will persist.