3 ms·
It's at least more easily understandable (lower is newer) than the average tech product naming scheme, especially those by Microsoft.
by gwervc 2y ago
It's at least more easily understandable (lower is newer) than the average tech product naming scheme, especially those by Microsoft.
- tommiegannert 2y agoThe problem is it sounds like something any engineer can understand without domain knowledge, but interpreting it that way is completely wrong. The worst kind of naming. Not just IKEA-style random names (and I say that as a Swede,) but reusing a standard, while not keeping to what the standard is normally used for, and what it previously meant even in this domain. N1.6 is much better for naming node processes. Or even TSMC16.
- bmicraft 2y agoNormally? That "standard" hasn't been used "normally" for 20 years now. Arguably the new way is normal in every sense of the word
- dmix 2y agoDo you think they'll be advertising 0.9nm in the future or switch it up at some point?
- bmicraft 2y agoIntel has already switched to Ångström for the most part
- smallmancontrov 2y agoI see MTr/mm2 a lot, it feels like a better measure, and it feels like the time is ripe for marketing to make a jump. Bigger is better, "mega" is cool, the numbers are hundreds to thousands in the foreseeable future so no chance of confusion with nm. What's not to love? But hey, I don't make these decisions, and I see no indication that anyone in a position to make these decisions has actually made them. Shrug.
- tommiegannert 2y agoYes. By standard I mean that nanometers ("nm") is used to describe physical distances. That's it's normal use, understood by all engineers. That's also how it was born into the semiconductor domain. In that domain, it should have either stayed a description of physical distances, or been replaced. They could invent codenames, or start using a better (physical) metric, if this one is no longer relevant.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]