• Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Aren’t these sizes a marketing gimmick anyway? They used to mean the gate size of a transistor, but I don’t think that’s been the case for a few years now.

    • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      They’re generally consistent within a single manufacturer’s product lines; however, you absolutely cannot compare them between manufacturers because the definitions are completely different.

    • cm0002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      No, it still means what it always has, and each step still introduces good gains.

      It’s just that each step is getting smaller and MUCH more difficult and we still aren’t entirely sure what to do after we get to 1. In the past we were able to go from 65nm in 2006 to 45 in 2008. We had 7nm in 2020, but in that same 2 year time frame we are only able to get to 5nm

      And now we’ve reached the need for decimal steps with this 1.6.

      • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Later each new generation process became known as a technology node[17] or process node,[18][19] designated by the process’ minimum feature size in nanometers (or historically micrometers) of the process’s transistor gate length, such as the “90 nm process”. However, this has not been the case since 1994,[20] and the number of nanometers used to name process nodes (see the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors) has become more of a marketing term that has no standardized relation with functional feature sizes or with transistor density (number of transistors per unit area).[21]

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_device_fabrication#Feature_size

        personally, I don’t care they try to simplify these extremely complicated chip layouts, but keep calling it X nanometers when there’s nothing of that feature size is just plain misleading.