5 ms·
Nigel Tufnel, chief scientist at TSMC, explains the merits of the latest hardware from ASML: "This is a fab, but it's very special because if you can see, the
by gjm11 3y ago
Nigel Tufnel, chief scientist at TSMC, explains the merits of the latest hardware from ASML:
"This is a fab, but it's very special because if you can see, the numbers all go down to 2nm. Look, right across the board. 2nm, 2nm, 2nm, 2nm ..."
"And most of the fabs go down to 3."
"Exactly."
"Does that mean it's ... smaller? Is it any smaller?"
"Well, it's one smaller, isn't it? It's not 3. You see, most fabs are going to be running at 3. You're on 3 on your fab -- where can you go from there? Where?"
"I dunno."
"Nowhere, exactly. And what we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?"
"Put it down to 2."
"2. Exactly. One smaller."
- tomcam 3y ago> Nigel Tufnel Deep cut
- smoldesu 3y ago"Nigel gave me a drawing that said 2nm. Your understanding of pitch width and packaging technology is not my problem. I do what I'm told."
- tromp 3y agoNice Spinal Tap parody... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_to_eleven https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_to_eleven
- ezequiel-garzon 3y agoThanks to both! I didn't know about it, so I needed the clarification. The scene: https://youtu.be/4xgx4k83zzc https://youtu.be/4xgx4k83zzc
- iaseiadit 3y agoYou joke but it does seem like we’re near the end of the line. We can go from 3 nm to 2 nm to 1 nm, but we can’t go negative nanometers. That’s it.
- ofrzeta 3y agoThere's no (natural) law that prescribes that integers must be used, is it? Also, from what I understand that nanometer count is a bit symbolic, less literal. EDIT: for instance IMEC talks about "sub 1nm" process, that is 0.7nm (https://www.tomshardware.com/news/imec-reveals-sub-1nm-transistor-roadmap-3d-stacked-cmos-20-plans https://www.tomshardware.com/news/imec-reveals-sub-1nm-trans...)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- iaseiadit 3y agoGoing from 1 nm to 0.7 nm is hardly as impressive as going from 3 nm to 2 nm. It’s only 0.3 nm less!
- mathematicaster 3y ago(relative) size (still) matters!
- nabakin 3y agoThey are joking too
- throwup238 3y agoNext up is picometers, femtometers, attometers, zeptometers, yoctometers, rontometers, and quectometers (not to be confused with quesometers). They can just keep going until they hit the Planck length as they continue to divorce their marketing from reality.
- iaseiadit 3y agoThose units sound made up. Nobody will believe them.
- fiftyfifty 3y agoI know this is a joke, but TSMC is already talking about 1.4nm processes by 2027-2028: https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/manufacturing/tsmc-mentions-14nm-process-tech-for-the-first-time-says-2nm-remains-on-track https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/manufacturing/tsm... It really looks like the current tech could take us to sub 1nm.
- zarzavat 3y agoThe point is that the number of “nanometers” has precious little physical significance anymore. It’s just a version number that counts downwards.
- pezezin 3y agoDude, I almost spilled my coffee xD
- kittoes 3y agoI know you just, but the numbers being so small makes a full decrement all that more impressive; 3 -> 2 is equivalent to 6 -> 4, 9 -> 6, 12 -> 8, ...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]