4 ms·

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

• 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.