3 ms·
IBM's 2nm beating TSMC's 3nm doesn't seem counter-intuitive. If their naming systems are comparable it's exactly what you'd expect.
by mkl 6y ago
IBM's 2nm beating TSMC's 3nm doesn't seem counter-intuitive. If their naming systems are comparable it's exactly what you'd expect.
- slfnflctd 6y agoWell, everyone knows now that the 'X nm' naming doesn't actually mean much when looking at the whole chip, which is why we're talking about transistors per area. Also, Apple has been designing modern chips with massive production volumes for a while, and IBM... hasn't (in fact, they've mostly sold off their former fabrication capabilities). So that's why my expectations were a little different.
- hexane360 6y agoThat makes sense as well. It's not unexpected that a one-off F1 car is faster than a mass-produced Mustang.