5 ms·

True, but it is way better than 5nm, 3nm, 1nm and you can not even cross-compare now...

• Hikikomori 5y ago
  Unless it's strictly defined and is followed by everyone it's going to be just as useless or useful as xnm is today. I mean, different parts of the chip have different density, cache, logic, etc. Should it be some specific part or average for the full chip? What if one architecture has massive caches which are denser than logic areas? What about AMD Zen with chips of different nodes? Or should it just be what the manufacturer states as the maximum possible, even if no chip gets close to that stated number, even in dense areas of the chip?
  • pulse7 5y ago
    OK. Then it should be the "average number of transistors per square micrometer" for a die.
  • tomxor 5y ago
    would a reasonable simplification be average propagation speed per transistor? Originally (in true denard scaling land) 2D feature size implied speed and density (which in turn implied power efficiency)... but now that features are distorting into different shapes, those two things are not necessarily directly correlated any more, so perhaps they should be measured separately. Propagation is the tricky bit because that's where ultimately designs and usable density come into play, but these are only supposed to be rough guides - a few metrics at extremes could be enough, propagation at highest (unrealistic) density, and a density that is possible to continually drive without heat dissipation and power issues.