3 ms·
>they're using "angstroms" I kinda hoped once they hit 1 "nanometer" they'd stop using these fake units of length.
by 0cVlTeIATBs 3y ago
>they're using "angstroms"
I kinda hoped once they hit 1 "nanometer" they'd stop using these fake units of length.
- TehCorwiz 3y agoAngstrom is a very real unit of measurement. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angstrom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angstrom
- tlamponi 3y agoI think they meant fake as in "doesn't relate to any size of the transistors", as the gate/metal pitch sizes are e.g. 40 nm and 54 nm respectively for Intel's "7nm" node [0], even the fin pitch is 34 nm, so almost 5 times bigger than the marketing term would like to imply. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_nm_process#Process_nodes_and_process_offerings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_nm_process#Process_nodes_and...
- TehCorwiz 3y agoAh, yeah. I can see that. So what does that refer to then, the smallest size of any feature of the transistor?
- Hizonner 3y agoIt does not refer to the physical size of any element or feature of the chips. It's the marketing department's claim about what you'd have had to do to achieve "equivalent performance" using geometries (and probably other things) that are no longer used. Or to put it another way it's completely untethered from reality in every way.
- vondur 3y agoAs a chem major, we used Angstroms for measuring bond distances and other small lengths.
- calfuris 3y agoI don't think they were decrying the use of Angstroms, but rather the continued use of size-based terminology that has become decoupled from the actual size of any physical features.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]