TSMC unveils 1.6nm process technology with backside power delivery

Post by smj-edison » Fri, Apr 26, 2024, 1:57 AM UTC

jjk166 wrote: post #125

ReptileMan wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not understanding chip design - but is it possible to get more computational bang with less transistors - are there some optimizations to be had? Better design that could compensate for bigger nodes?

The design optimization software for modern semiconductors is arguably the most advanced design software on earth with likely tens if not hundreds of millions of man-years put into it. It takes into account not only the complex physics that apply at the nano-scale but also the interplay of the various manufacturing steps and optimizes trillions of features. Every process change brings about new potential optimization…

Post by greenavocado » Fri, Apr 26, 2024, 2:35 AM UTC

crote wrote: post #162

robocat wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminiscent of the Java CPUs: Not even used for embedded (ironically the reason Java was created?). And not used at all by the massive Java compute needed for corporate software worldwide?

Weren't they used in Java Cards? Basically, every single credit card sized security chip (including actual credit cards, of course) is a small processor running Java applets. Pretty much everyone has one or more in their wallet. I'd assume those were actual Java CPUs directly executing bytecode?

Post by Workaccount2 » Fri, Apr 26, 2024, 3:52 AM UTC

brennanpeterson wrote: post #173

Workaccount2 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Likely better" doesn't come from 14A vs 16A. It comes from Intel using High NA-EUV vs TSMC using double pattern Low NA-EUV. If Intel pulls off DSA, they will be using a newer generation of technology compared to TSMC using an optimized older generation. Could TSMC still make better chips? Maybe. But Intel will likely be better.

I am not sure where that would come from. There is nothing about dsa that means this. Dsa is one of many patterning assist technologies, just...an old one. Neat, but not 'new'. You use patterning assist to make smaller, more regular features, which is exactly what the 16a vs 18a refers to. That has somewhat less to do with performance, which is tied as much to material, stress, and interface parameters. Nothing gets…

Post by exe34 » Fri, Apr 26, 2024, 4:11 AM UTC

bee_rider wrote: post #168

exe34 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait till you talk to theoretical physicists who set c=h-bar=1.

I don’t think they drop the dimensions, just the constants.

Post by gameshot911 » Fri, Apr 26, 2024, 9:02 AM UTC

baq wrote: post #145

simpsond wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

200 million transistors per square millimeter. Gallons per mile only makes sense when you are talking about dragsters.

gallons per hundred miles make much more sense than that. incidentally, this is the measure rest of the world is advertising, except usually in liters per 100km. there's a good reason for this: comparisons linear instead of inversely proportional. 6l/100km is 50% better than 9l/100km. 30mpg vs 20mpg is... not as simple.