4 ms·
> If Intel technically leapfrog TSMC and their 18nm is better than TSMC 20nm this year but; Think you mean 1.8nm, aka 18A. We're way past 18nm and 20nm.
by SkyMarshal 1y ago
> If Intel technically leapfrog TSMC and their 18nm is better than TSMC 20nm this year but;
Think you mean 1.8nm, aka 18A. We're way past 18nm and 20nm.
- swores 1y agoHow long ago did nm numbers stop being descriptions of size of chip and start being purely marketing names? About a decade?
- bee_rider 1y agoWhile it is true that the nm numbers are bullshit, using the same made-up number helps keep the conversation on track, haha.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- danparsonson 1y agohttps://www.extremetech.com/computing/296154-how-are-process-nodes-defined https://www.extremetech.com/computing/296154-how-are-process... "For a long time, gate length (the length of the transistor gate) and half-pitch (half the distance between two identical features on a chip) matched the process node name, but the last time this was true was 1997"
- swores 1y agoOh wow, I didn't realise it has been that long! Thanks for sharing
- danparsonson 1y agoSame here, I would have put it much more recently than that; I wonder how long before we'll be into negative numbers...
- ksec 1y agoYeah. That is what happen when I post it just before I felt asleep. Too late now can't edit it.