4 ms·

Note that 3nm and the rest of the process names in the past decade don't actually measure the size of the transistor - it's all marketing[0], and is why Intel i

by judge2020 4y ago

Note that 3nm and the rest of the process names in the past decade don't actually measure the size of the transistor - it's all marketing[0], and is why Intel is dropping the "nm" naming in favor of "Intel 7, Intel 4, Intel 3, Intel 20A, Intel 18A"[1]. However, maybe someone can link to resources that explain the potential [quantum] hurdles they have to overcome as they've increased density and performance. 0: https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/tsmc-7nm-5nm-and-3nm-are-just-numbers https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/tsmc-7nm-5nm-and-3nm-are-just-n... 1: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16823/intel-accelerated-offensive-process-roadmap-updates-to-10nm-7nm-4nm-3nm-20a-18a-packaging-foundry-emib-foveros https://www.anandtech.com/show/16823/intel-accelerated-offen...

api 4y ago
They really should just do transistors/mm^2 or transistors/mm^2/watt or something.
- __alexs 4y ago
  The problem with that measurement is that you get extremely different numbers depending on what you're making. e.g. the density of memory is massively different to the density of logic.
  - farisjarrah 4y ago
    I don't think that's necessarily problematic anymore then measuring fluid viscosity is problematic. Once someone start's getting into debates over the size of transistors on microprocessors then you are already getting pretty wonky and are going to need some science to describe things anyways.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    So you pick something relatively standard (like an SRAM cell), and you use that. There was a concerted effort some time back to formalize a standard measurement of process density using something like "million transistors per square centimetre" by a standards organization. (IEEE?) It wasn't a perfect measurement but it was a lot better than width. It failed so completely that I can't even Google it any more. The awkward name probably didn't help. edit: it's "MT/mm2". Some people actually use it, but more in the informal sense that has the problem you espoused rather than the formalized one, which I still can't find.
    - aeonik 4y ago
      A lot of Wall Street seems to have issues with non GAAP accounting metrics like Annual Recurring Revenue (based on the the few earnings meeting I've listened in on), I don't have high hopes that this would work.
- willis936 4y ago
  That wouldn't capture the fact that there are fundamental physical barriers being run into. "Smallest feature size" is a perfectly adequate metric until things get complicated. Replacing an insufficient simple metric with a different one insufficient metric isn't the right solution imo.
- arroz 4y ago
  Well current is proportional to W/L, and W and L is area We can always increase W, but decreasing L requires technological advancements So I’m not sure on the value of area (W and L), L alone is more relevant (for the reason I said above) we are dealing with finfets / GAA now which are not the same as planner transistor, but I guess there should still be relevance in L and W because these measurements are important even for resistors So probably some sort of equivalence between a FF and a planar transistor should be given to name the nodes
- plasticchris 4y ago
  Like this: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9063714 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9063714
- monocasa 4y ago
  Each node will have many sets of transistors depending on what you want in the tradeoffs between power/density/performance. Typically a half dozen or so options.
mrtksn 4y ago
Okay but who they are fooling exactly? It's not like an average soccer mum shops for CPUs and choses the 3nm because she is impressed with the 3 nanometre transistor gates, right? Are they after investors or traders? Why they don't call it something like superlaser 9000 and the next year hyperlaser 10K speedmaster?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  I think it's mainly for investors yea. They don't want people reading articles to see that the competitors numbers are better than theirs.
- potatolicious 4y ago
  > It's not like an average soccer mum shops for CPUs and choses the 3nm because she is impressed with the 3 nanometre transistor gates, right? No but enthusiasts (read: gamers) do. A lot of PC industry marketing nowadays is geared towards retail PC builders, who are very impressed by tech jargon.
  - 7speter 4y ago
    But tech media outlets like gamers nexus always remind viewers that intel 7 is really intels 10nm, etc
- ummonk 4y ago
  Even though the process sizes aren’t objective or comparable across manufacturers, they do indicate meaningful improvement in sizing / density from a specific manufacturer.
- NavinF 4y ago
  It’s all about transistor density and newer nodes deliver that. Nobody cares about gate size.
  - 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

api 4y ago

They really should just do transistors/mm^2 or transistors/mm^2/watt or something.

__alexs 4y ago
The problem with that measurement is that you get extremely different numbers depending on what you're making. e.g. the density of memory is massively different to the density of logic.
- farisjarrah 4y ago
  I don't think that's necessarily problematic anymore then measuring fluid viscosity is problematic. Once someone start's getting into debates over the size of transistors on microprocessors then you are already getting pretty wonky and are going to need some science to describe things anyways.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  So you pick something relatively standard (like an SRAM cell), and you use that. There was a concerted effort some time back to formalize a standard measurement of process density using something like "million transistors per square centimetre" by a standards organization. (IEEE?) It wasn't a perfect measurement but it was a lot better than width. It failed so completely that I can't even Google it any more. The awkward name probably didn't help. edit: it's "MT/mm2". Some people actually use it, but more in the informal sense that has the problem you espoused rather than the formalized one, which I still can't find.
  - aeonik 4y ago
    A lot of Wall Street seems to have issues with non GAAP accounting metrics like Annual Recurring Revenue (based on the the few earnings meeting I've listened in on), I don't have high hopes that this would work.
willis936 4y ago
That wouldn't capture the fact that there are fundamental physical barriers being run into. "Smallest feature size" is a perfectly adequate metric until things get complicated. Replacing an insufficient simple metric with a different one insufficient metric isn't the right solution imo.
arroz 4y ago
Well current is proportional to W/L, and W and L is area We can always increase W, but decreasing L requires technological advancements So I’m not sure on the value of area (W and L), L alone is more relevant (for the reason I said above) we are dealing with finfets / GAA now which are not the same as planner transistor, but I guess there should still be relevance in L and W because these measurements are important even for resistors So probably some sort of equivalence between a FF and a planar transistor should be given to name the nodes
plasticchris 4y ago
Like this: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9063714 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9063714
monocasa 4y ago
Each node will have many sets of transistors depending on what you want in the tradeoffs between power/density/performance. Typically a half dozen or so options.

mrtksn 4y ago

Okay but who they are fooling exactly? It's not like an average soccer mum shops for CPUs and choses the 3nm because she is impressed with the 3 nanometre transistor gates, right? Are they after investors or traders? Why they don't call it something like superlaser 9000 and the next year hyperlaser 10K speedmaster?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
colinmhayes 4y ago
I think it's mainly for investors yea. They don't want people reading articles to see that the competitors numbers are better than theirs.
potatolicious 4y ago
> It's not like an average soccer mum shops for CPUs and choses the 3nm because she is impressed with the 3 nanometre transistor gates, right? No but enthusiasts (read: gamers) do. A lot of PC industry marketing nowadays is geared towards retail PC builders, who are very impressed by tech jargon.
- 7speter 4y ago
  But tech media outlets like gamers nexus always remind viewers that intel 7 is really intels 10nm, etc
ummonk 4y ago
Even though the process sizes aren’t objective or comparable across manufacturers, they do indicate meaningful improvement in sizing / density from a specific manufacturer.
NavinF 4y ago
It’s all about transistor density and newer nodes deliver that. Nobody cares about gate size.
- 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]