4 ms·
Does someone have an up-to-date table comparing the different fabs' interpretations of "Xnm" process size? I recall them all having very different values (to t
by dmoy 8y ago
Does someone have an up-to-date table comparing the different fabs' interpretations of "Xnm" process size? I recall them all having very different values (to the point where one might actually be a whole process size behind, but not admit it for marketing purposes).
- tfha 8y agoBasically everybody is lying by 1 full step except Intel, who is only lying by 1 half step. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_nanometer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_nanometer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_nanometer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_nanometer
- YouOkOrNot 8y ago>"The naming of process nodes by different major manufacturers (TSMC, Intel, Samsung, GlobalFoundries) are partially direct lies (aka “marketing”) and not directly related to any measurable distance on a chip" Ha! Love Wikipedia so much.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- AceJohnny2 8y agoWikichip: https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/7_nm_lithography_process https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/7_nm_lithography_process
- dmoy 8y agoAwesome thanks, this is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for.
- raws 8y agobest compare densities but apparently intel's 10nm will be on par if not very close or better than competition's 7nm. So it's not late to the party, source: GN iirc.