3 ms·

If 3nm is merely a marketing term that has no relation to the distance between transistors than aren't we approaching a state where we could theoretically go in

by kernal 4y ago

If 3nm is merely a marketing term that has no relation to the distance between transistors than aren't we approaching a state where we could theoretically go into the negatives?

colejohnson66 4y ago
TL;DR: It's exponential, so it'll never go negative. After 3 comes 2. After 2 (at least for Intel) comes 1.8, or 18 Angstroms. See Wikipedia[0] for a reference. Longer answer: (someone correct me where I'm wrong) Historically, the number was a measure of the size of the transistor. 250 nm process nodes were producing planar transistors that were about 250 nm across. A node was then defined as the measure that brought a set increase in performance. In other words, going from 250 nm to 180 nm was the same improvement as going from 180 nm to 130 nm. About the 45/32 nm mark, we reached the limits of making planar transistors. The machines couldn't get enough resolution to make them reliably. So, FinFET and others were invented as a way to increase performance to what was needed for the next generations. Essentially, the product has the performance of what planar transistors at said size would give, but they're not actually that size. However, now that a few node generations have passed, even that's not true anymore. Now, it's just a marketing term, and you can't even compare performance between different manufacturers. TSMC's 5 nm has different performance than Samsung's and Intel's. All you can know is that TSMC's 3 nm will be better than their 5 nm. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_scale_examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_scale_ex...
- GeekyBear 4y ago
  Indeed. You just drop down to smaller units. The Intel 8088 chip was made on a 3 micrometer process node and a decade later they had to measure in nanometers for the 486 which launched on an 800 nm process node.

by kernal 4y ago

If 3nm is merely a marketing term that has no relation to the distance between transistors than aren't we approaching a state where we could theoretically go into the negatives?

colejohnson66 4y ago

TL;DR: It's exponential, so it'll never go negative. After 3 comes 2. After 2 (at least for Intel) comes 1.8, or 18 Angstroms. See Wikipedia[0] for a reference. Longer answer: (someone correct me where I'm wrong) Historically, the number was a measure of the size of the transistor. 250 nm process nodes were producing planar transistors that were about 250 nm across. A node was then defined as the measure that brought a set increase in performance. In other words, going from 250 nm to 180 nm was the same improvement as going from 180 nm to 130 nm. About the 45/32 nm mark, we reached the limits of making planar transistors. The machines couldn't get enough resolution to make them reliably. So, FinFET and others were invented as a way to increase performance to what was needed for the next generations. Essentially, the product has the performance of what planar transistors at said size would give, but they're not actually that size. However, now that a few node generations have passed, even that's not true anymore. Now, it's just a marketing term, and you can't even compare performance between different manufacturers. TSMC's 5 nm has different performance than Samsung's and Intel's. All you can know is that TSMC's 3 nm will be better than their 5 nm. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_scale_examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_scale_ex...

GeekyBear 4y ago
Indeed. You just drop down to smaller units. The Intel 8088 chip was made on a 3 micrometer process node and a decade later they had to measure in nanometers for the 486 which launched on an 800 nm process node.