4 ms·
> 3. Samsung is also the reason why we have "nm" numbers that dont at least correlate to something. ( 99.9999% of the Internet blame TSMC for it ) And those num
by _kbh_ 4y ago
> 3. Samsung is also the reason why we have "nm" numbers that dont at least correlate to something. ( 99.9999% of the Internet blame TSMC for it ) And those numbers you see on roadmap means nothing.
I thought the reason for this is that the quoted nm numbers in a modern process node where pretty much for the most optimal kinda gate in the most dense layout (maybe something like SRAM?).
- ksec 4y agoYou mean the smallest feature size. That used to be the case until Samsung start playing around with the number a little bit more for marketing, and the whole market force TSMC to follow, and after a few cycles we left with nothing but a name with numbers. You could probably still find some useless metric that fit the narrative. But that is beside the point.
- _kbh_ 4y ago> You mean the smallest feature size. That is the word I am looking for. > That used to be the case until Samsung start playing around with the number a little bit more for marketing, and the whole market force TSMC to follow, and after a few cycles we left with nothing but a name with numbers. Huh I didn't know that, does anyone publish min feature sizes for modern process nodes?.