5 ms·
You 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.
by iaseiadit 3y ago
You 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.
- throwup238 3y agoThey're all made up.
- yardstick 3y agoNot too long ago nanometer was made up.
- wffurr 3y agoIntel has gone with ångstroms.
- Tempest1981 3y agoNot just # of atoms?
- DeathArrow 3y agoAnd if we run out of prefixes we will add new ones.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago0.5nm, 0.25nm, 0.125nm ...