31–40 of 97 posts
A few days ago it was reported that Chine companies started producing 5nm chips (model Kirin 9006C) - many years earlier than US government expected they will be able to do so. With this insane progress I will not wonder if Chinese companies start mass producing 2nm chips earlier than anyone else.
Nigel Tufnel, chief scientist at TSMC, explains the merits of the latest hardware from ASML: "This is a fab, but it's very special because if you can see, the numbers all go down to 2nm. Look, right across the board. 2nm, 2nm, 2nm, 2nm ..." "And most of the fabs go down to 3." "Exactly." "Does that mean it's ... smaller? Is it any smaller?" "Well, it's one smaller, isn't it? It's not 3. You see, most fabs are going t…
Nigel Tufnel, chief scientist at TSMC, explains the merits of the latest hardware from ASML: "This is a fab, but it's very special because if you can see, the numbers all go down to 2nm. Look, right across the board. 2nm, 2nm, 2nm, 2nm ..." "And most of the fabs go down to 3." "Exactly." "Does that mean it's ... smaller? Is it any smaller?" "Well, it's one smaller, isn't it? It's not 3. You see, most fabs are going t…
You joke but it does seem like we’re near the end of the line. We can go from 3 nm to 2 nm to 1 nm, but we can’t go negative nanometers. That’s it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You joke but it does seem like we’re near the end of the line. We can go from 3 nm to 2 nm to 1 nm, but we can’t go negative nanometers. That’s it.
There's no (natural) law that prescribes that integers must be used, is it? Also, from what I understand that nanometer count is a bit symbolic, less literal. EDIT: for instance IMEC talks about "sub 1nm" process, that is 0.7nm ( https://www.tomshardware.com/news/imec-reveals-sub-1nm-trans... )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You joke but it does seem like we’re near the end of the line. We can go from 3 nm to 2 nm to 1 nm, but we can’t go negative nanometers. That’s it.
There's no (natural) law that prescribes that integers must be used, is it? Also, from what I understand that nanometer count is a bit symbolic, less literal. EDIT: for instance IMEC talks about "sub 1nm" process, that is 0.7nm ( https://www.tomshardware.com/news/imec-reveals-sub-1nm-trans... )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You joke but it does seem like we’re near the end of the line. We can go from 3 nm to 2 nm to 1 nm, but we can’t go negative nanometers. That’s it.
Next up is picometers, femtometers, attometers, zeptometers, yoctometers, rontometers, and quectometers (not to be confused with quesometers). They can just keep going until they hit the Planck length as they continue to divorce their marketing from reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You joke but it does seem like we’re near the end of the line. We can go from 3 nm to 2 nm to 1 nm, but we can’t go negative nanometers. That’s it.
There's no (natural) law that prescribes that integers must be used, is it? Also, from what I understand that nanometer count is a bit symbolic, less literal. EDIT: for instance IMEC talks about "sub 1nm" process, that is 0.7nm ( https://www.tomshardware.com/news/imec-reveals-sub-1nm-trans... )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm guessing we're not done, we're just reaching the endgame with silicon dies. Next steps will be new tech sometimes with a long lead time until it has been developed to the extent that it's competitive with silicon. Things like integrated photonics (or a completely photonic CPU), quantum computers, or diamond instead of silicon (or other materials instead of silicon). Are we not still getting exponential growth in…
It's impossible for growth to be exponential indefinitely. Eventually it'll end up as a sigmoid curve. Secondly, progress isn't smooth. It comes in phases and leaps, and it's possible for it to stagnate for a long time.
Folks have been saying exponential growth is over for many decades now. It may have slowed in some ways or growth might be going in different directions, but it's still growth and I see no signs that the end is near or we're close to a major longterm slowdown of growth.
Everything over the last years tells me we are very close to the end game in chip production. 1. power stopped scaling 2. clocks stopped - 4x over 20 years? 3. node names became fiction. 4. EUV now differentiates the top from everyone else. 5. IPC improvements are a trickle. 6. Tons of non-moores law ideas are here: A) GPUs B) chiplets C) stacked die D) specialized accelerators 7. Governments are now involved in divi…
https://www.youtube.com/live/oIG9ztQw2Gc?si=vCBGGm0tkhG-VOyd
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Next up is picometers, femtometers, attometers, zeptometers, yoctometers, rontometers, and quectometers (not to be confused with quesometers). They can just keep going until they hit the Planck length as they continue to divorce their marketing from reality.
Those units sound made up. Nobody will believe them.