5 ms·
> Today, the node names are little more than marketing terms. 'The node designation is becoming more misleading and meaningless," said Samuel Wang, an analyst a
by SethTro 7y ago
> Today, the node names are little more than marketing terms. 'The node designation is becoming more misleading and meaningless," said Samuel Wang, an analyst at Gartner. "For example, at 5nm or 3nm, there is no single geometry that is actually 5nm or 3nm."
- hartator 7y agoSo what is 5nm or 3nm?
- aarongolliver 7y agoIt has about the same meaning as the 5 or 3 in "core i5" or "core i3". It's all marketing.
- wmf 7y agoThe process marketed as 5nm has roughly twice the density as the process marketed as 7nm and so on up and down the line; that's how they justify it.
- AlexCoventry 7y agoHow can they double the density without decreasing the feature size?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- tandr 7y agoI am wildly speculating here, but maybe going 3rd dimension?
- wmf 7y agoThe feature side usually does decrease every generation; it's just that the feature size for, say, a "7nm" process is not exactly 7nm.
- ggm 7y agoThe power of recursive reasoning. Induction tells us that Intel's 10nm process probably wasn't 10nm features...
- trianglem 7y agoWhy is this not considered misleading and regulated?
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoThis is considered misleading. But why would it be regulated? Nobody buys a chip based on the advertised feature size. They buy on power use, MIPS, number of cores, and cost.