5 ms·

1.6 nm is 16 A. If they continue the BS for much longer, the "feature size" will be smaller than the lattice of Si.

by thsksbd 2y ago

__alexs 2y ago
You're the one calling it a feature size, not TSMC.
- lostlogin 2y ago
  I’m sure you agree that the measurement given is a marketing term and is generally unhelpful beyond ‘it’s smaller than the current number’.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Tagbert 2y ago
    it also seems to be a roughly proportional change in density so why would it be unhelpful? Just because you can't point to a specific feature and say that is 1.6nm, doesn't make the label meaningless as so many try to assert. It is a label that represents a process that results in a specific transistor density. What label would you prefer?
    - thsksbd 2y ago
      ... transistor density?
      - lostlogin 2y ago
        Correct. Or something else that allowed comparison between fabs without me having to read a ton of explanations.
  - __alexs 2y ago
    That you think it needs to convey anything other than "better than the last version" suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of marketing. It's actually even kind of decent because it is actually approximately more dense as you might suspect given the numbers.
- thsksbd 2y ago
  They're the ones specifying units.
  - __alexs 2y ago
    I'm begging even 1 person in this thread to do even 5 minutes of research on where these numbers come from.
    - thsksbd 2y ago
      Let me see if I understand what this is. It used to be the actual feature size which was quadratically proportional to transistor density. Once feature size stopped being meaningful they continued using it by extrapolating from transistor density, ie whenever they would quadruple density they'd half this massive number. This, therefore, includes innovations like finfets and other " 2.5D" technologies Is that largely correct? Because it's gross.
phkahler 2y ago
And it's not that much better than the previous 2nm node, so it seems like the number is just meant to be smaller than Intel 18A. I wish Intel in the switch to "A" would have at least returned to a physically meaningful measure. Then just maybe the industry could agree to use that for a while. Like 180A or whatever it needed to be - maybe just the smallest metal pitch or something.

1.6 nm is 16 A. If they continue the BS for much longer, the "feature size" will be smaller than the lattice of Si.

__alexs 2y ago

You're the one calling it a feature size, not TSMC.

lostlogin 2y ago
I’m sure you agree that the measurement given is a marketing term and is generally unhelpful beyond ‘it’s smaller than the current number’.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Tagbert 2y ago
  it also seems to be a roughly proportional change in density so why would it be unhelpful? Just because you can't point to a specific feature and say that is 1.6nm, doesn't make the label meaningless as so many try to assert. It is a label that represents a process that results in a specific transistor density. What label would you prefer?
  - thsksbd 2y ago
    ... transistor density?
    - lostlogin 2y ago
      Correct. Or something else that allowed comparison between fabs without me having to read a ton of explanations.
- __alexs 2y ago
  That you think it needs to convey anything other than "better than the last version" suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of marketing. It's actually even kind of decent because it is actually approximately more dense as you might suspect given the numbers.
thsksbd 2y ago
They're the ones specifying units.
- __alexs 2y ago
  I'm begging even 1 person in this thread to do even 5 minutes of research on where these numbers come from.
  - thsksbd 2y ago
    Let me see if I understand what this is. It used to be the actual feature size which was quadratically proportional to transistor density. Once feature size stopped being meaningful they continued using it by extrapolating from transistor density, ie whenever they would quadruple density they'd half this massive number. This, therefore, includes innovations like finfets and other " 2.5D" technologies Is that largely correct? Because it's gross.

phkahler 2y ago

And it's not that much better than the previous 2nm node, so it seems like the number is just meant to be smaller than Intel 18A. I wish Intel in the switch to "A" would have at least returned to a physically meaningful measure. Then just maybe the industry could agree to use that for a while. Like 180A or whatever it needed to be - maybe just the smallest metal pitch or something.