Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

1nm Breakthrough: TSMC, MIT and NTU Published on Nature

buzzorange.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: 1nm Breakthrough: TSMC, MIT and NTU Published on Nature

#31

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

threatofrain wrote: post #17
CalChris wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term "5 nanometer" has no relation to any actual physical feature (such as gate length, metal pitch or gate pitch) of the transistors. It is a commercial or marketing term used by the chip fabrication industry to refer to a new, improved generation of silicon semiconductor chips in terms of increased transistor density, increased speed and reduced power consumption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_nm_process It i…

IMO GiB and gigabit are deliberately consumer-confusing terms with an even clearer standard definition.

Both powers of 1000 and 1024 are common in computing depending on the context (no it is not just a hard drive thing). Surely it is only reasonable that the non-SI quantities get their own prefix to distinguish them from the SI quantities?

Re: 1nm Breakthrough: TSMC, MIT and NTU Published on Nature

#32

Post by johncalvinyoung »

edgyquant wrote: post #21
threatofrain wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO GiB and gigabit are deliberately consumer-confusing terms with an even clearer standard definition.

Same with 4K, prior to it the number was used to describe the height of the screen (480, 720, 1080) but then 4K describes the width which confuses people into thinking it has 4x the resolution of 1080 when it’s really 2160 (double the resolution.)

The challenge there was combining code systems. 4K as a standard had been used for a relatively long time in digital cinema and editing, and I believe the long-dimension standard was chosen based on telecine processes for scanning film for digital editing and effects. Consumer tech wasn't anywhere near those sorts of resolutions for a very long time, and the 480/720/1080 definition was based on TV broadcasts displayed with CRT scanlines. Then consumer display density rose to the point that it became relevant, and 4K was the preexisting professional name for digital displays in that resolution. It's complicated, but I don't think the choice was intended to confuse.

Re: 1nm Breakthrough: TSMC, MIT and NTU Published on Nature

#33

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

edgyquant wrote: post #21
threatofrain wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO GiB and gigabit are deliberately consumer-confusing terms with an even clearer standard definition.

Same with 4K, prior to it the number was used to describe the height of the screen (480, 720, 1080) but then 4K describes the width which confuses people into thinking it has 4x the resolution of 1080 when it’s really 2160 (double the resolution.)

4K is the successor to 2K. It's not deliberately misleading. Every resolution has had several names:

• 480p/480i, SD

• 720p/720i, HD

• 1080p/1080i, full HD, 2K*

• 2160p, ultra HD, 4K*

* actually refers to several resolutions with different aspect ratios, but roughly the same pixel count

Re: 1nm Breakthrough: TSMC, MIT and NTU Published on Nature

#34

Post by cdash »

CalChris wrote: post #11
out_of_protocol wrote: post #6

That "1nm" is complete marketing bullshit, like it always was, for a decade or two. Silicon lattice step is ~0.5nm, so 1nm is at most 3 atoms. Current technology is definitely not there yet however we're getting closer. Very interested what marketing department will say after 1nm became old news

The term "5 nanometer" has no relation to any actual physical feature (such as gate length, metal pitch or gate pitch) of the transistors. It is a commercial or marketing term used by the chip fabrication industry to refer to a new, improved generation of silicon semiconductor chips in terms of increased transistor density, increased speed and reduced power consumption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_nm_process It i…

Except it isn't an industry standard term unless you mean the marketing industry. And the standard for them is it means whatever we say it means.

Re: 1nm Breakthrough: TSMC, MIT and NTU Published on Nature

#36

Post by threatofrain »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #31
threatofrain wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO GiB and gigabit are deliberately consumer-confusing terms with an even clearer standard definition.

Both powers of 1000 and 1024 are common in computing depending on the context (no it is not just a hard drive thing). Surely it is only reasonable that the non-SI quantities get their own prefix to distinguish them from the SI quantities?

I see consumer confusion as based on our ability to guess whether there's going to be a mismatch between communication and understanding, and despite technical correctness. Admittedly that example is pretty marginal, so I added a better one.

Re: 1nm Breakthrough: TSMC, MIT and NTU Published on Nature

#37

Post by gameswithgo »

out_of_protocol wrote: post #6

That "1nm" is complete marketing bullshit, like it always was, for a decade or two. Silicon lattice step is ~0.5nm, so 1nm is at most 3 atoms. Current technology is definitely not there yet however we're getting closer. Very interested what marketing department will say after 1nm became old news

we all know this, we see this comment daily.

Re: 1nm Breakthrough: TSMC, MIT and NTU Published on Nature

#38

Post by GuB-42 »

CalChris wrote: post #11
out_of_protocol wrote: post #6

That "1nm" is complete marketing bullshit, like it always was, for a decade or two. Silicon lattice step is ~0.5nm, so 1nm is at most 3 atoms. Current technology is definitely not there yet however we're getting closer. Very interested what marketing department will say after 1nm became old news

The term "5 nanometer" has no relation to any actual physical feature (such as gate length, metal pitch or gate pitch) of the transistors. It is a commercial or marketing term used by the chip fabrication industry to refer to a new, improved generation of silicon semiconductor chips in terms of increased transistor density, increased speed and reduced power consumption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_nm_process It i…

Not really standard. Intel is one generation "late" for the same process compared to TSMC.

By TSMC standards, Intel's 7nm is a 5nm process and Intel's 10nm is a 7nm process.

So it is not even industry standard marketing bullshit.

Re: 1nm Breakthrough: TSMC, MIT and NTU Published on Nature

#39

Post by jacquesm »

ckemere wrote: post #26

Abstract: Advanced beyond-silicon electronic technology requires both channel materials and also ultralow-resistance contacts to be discovered1,2. Atomically thin two-dimensional semiconductors have great potential for realizing high-performance electronic devices1,3. However, owing to metal-induced gap states (MIGS)4,5,6,7, energy barriers at the metal–semiconductor interface—which fundamentally lead to high contact…

That could be very good news in terms of power consumption for a given amount of computing capacity.

Re: 1nm Breakthrough: TSMC, MIT and NTU Published on Nature

#40

Post by jacquesm »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #12

Challenging to read things that are auto-translated from Chinese into English. From what I gather from the article, didn't get the Nature paper yet, the novelty here is a bismuth deposition process that doesn't damage fine structures underneath it. This is definitely one of the hard problems in semiconductor manufacturing and as stated, it is implied it allows for very fine lines (1 nm) for connecting elements on a c…

Yes, exactly that. I'm much more happy about the potential for power savings than the possibility to further extend the miniaturization, the latter has a lot of other hurdles that need to be overcome than just in-the-lab process size. Spend enough money and you can already have features that small (and much smaller) in the lab, but the power saving potential here is massive.
Post reply on HN