4 ms·
>Imagine canning your 7nm process last minute only few years before the chip shortage. https://www.eetimes.com/samsung-globalfoundries-prep-14nm-process/ https
by MangoCoffee 1y ago
>Imagine canning your 7nm process last minute only few years before the chip shortage.
https://www.eetimes.com/samsung-globalfoundries-prep-14nm-process/ https://www.eetimes.com/samsung-globalfoundries-prep-14nm-pr...
"Samsung expects to be in production late this year with a 14 nm FinFET process it has developed. GlobalFoundries has licensed the process and will have it in production early next year."
GlobalFoundries licensed 14nm from Samsung. How do you know GlobalFoundries is capable of 7nm?
- kragen 1y agoThis was from 02014, btw.
- MangoCoffee 1y agothat's my point. how does OP know GlobalFoundries is capable of 7nm if they can't even do 14nm. do you have any insider info that you can share?
- kragen 1y agoI agree, and I wrote a longer comment agreeing with your point at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44503245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44503245.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- kasabali 1y agoNo I don't have insider info. Neither do you. What an ridiculous nit to pick.
- jonas21 1y agoYou're the one claiming it's the "most moronic decision ever". The burden of proof is on you to support your claim that they could have executed a 7nm process profitably, as opposed to them looking at the data and coming to a rational conclusion that they couldn't.
- kragen 1y agoRight, it seems like kasabali is making claims that are considerably more absolute than they would be able to justify without insider info.
- kasabali 1y ago> The burden of proof is on you to support your claim that they could have executed a 7nm process profitably Why the fuck I'd have to prove that given that GloFo themselves claimed that they pulled out of it because it'd be unprofitable? Some people in this subthread are very eager to put words into my mouth.
- rusticpenn 1y agoThey signed a contract with IBM to manufacture their chips at 7nm (and reneged).
- d332 1y agobtw, what's with the leading zero here?
- WithinReason 1y agoIt's there to provoke your question
- tonyedgecombe 1y agoBest to just downvote it then.
- gruturo 1y agoIndeed. Consider it trolling, ignore it. It's just stupid.
- ajb 1y agoIt's a meme that's supposed to get people to think in >4-digit timescales, apparently. Always makes me think of octal TBH
- badc0ffee 1y agoHe's talking about AD 1036. Try to keep up
- AnimalMuppet 1y agoIt's "Long Now" stuff, which really should be called "Medium Now" because they're only using one leading zero. kragen thinks making most of his readers glitch for a second every time they read one of his dates is worth it on order to advertise for the Long Now. Really unfortunate choice, since he often has decent information to share.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- mjevans 1y agoI think they've over-corrected from the two digits are enough truncation that was common in computers between the 1950s and ~2000. It started to become less common then, but the phase out is arguably still going or stalled until things just die. However OCTAL (leading zero) prefixing of a text mode number fails on a number of points: * It's still a fixed register size (5 characters), which will overflow on the year 100000 AD. * It's confusing, everyone else. * It's not technically correct. (human behavior) Truncating to two year digits was confusing because ambiguity. There is no ambiguity if a number encoded in decimal uses precisely the number of characters it needs. That's how normal humans normally write numbers.
- kasabali 1y agoI know that, but I've brought it up anyway. It's irrelevant who they've licenced it from because they executed it god damn well.