4 ms·
You're the one calling it a feature size, not TSMC.
by __alexs 2y ago
You're the one calling it a feature size, not TSMC.
- lostlogin 2y agoI’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 agoit 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?
- __alexs 2y agoThat 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 agoThey're the ones specifying units.
- __alexs 2y agoI'm begging even 1 person in this thread to do even 5 minutes of research on where these numbers come from.
- thsksbd 2y agoLet 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.