• eksb@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 hours ago

      The “Xnm” sizes have not related to any actual length for decades. It is purely marketing.

      • homes@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 hours ago

        lol, no kidding.

        Do you have any more information on this? I’d like to know how the hell this happened.

        • eleijeep@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 hours ago

          It started out as gate-length and then when we started building 3D transistors with FinFETs and gate-all-around, where the 2-dimensional gate-length is not comparable to “flat” transistors, they had to instead estimate the effective equivalent 2D gate-length that would give the same transistor density.

          So the process name is now no longer a measure of any tangible feature size but more a descriptor of transistor density that is loosely consistent with the prior convention.

        • rem26_art@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          It seems like 1994 was where process nodes started to not be so correlated with their actual size, according to this IEEE article. In 1994, transistor features were actually smaller than what was advertised, up until the early 2000’s, where the naming became smaller than physical size. From what I understand, most of the gains in computing power have come from other improvements in processes and transistor geometry.

          I guess the industry never really bothered changing their naming schemes, or couldn’t figure out a better way?

    • eleijeep@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 hours ago

      They actually decided to use Angstroms for the initial sub-nanometre processes.

      FTA:

      Whatever, Chosun Biz also claims that TSMC plans to begin mass production of the node following N2 in 2028. Known as A14 in TSMC parlance, where the “A” stands for angstroms, the next unit of measurement down from nanometers, a 2028 release would put it exactly two years behind N2 and thus maintain a biennial cadence of rolling out a new node every two years.

      And Intel talked about it in 2021:

      https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/07/intels-foundry-roadmap-lays-out-the-post-nanometer-angstrom-era/

      • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Angstrom is not the next unit down from nanometers.

        Picometers are the next unit down. Angstrom is a non SI antiquated measure.

        • eleijeep@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Yeah, it’s pcgamer writing about silicon manufacturing. Even the headline is insane (“1nm chips” instead of “1nm process”).