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

IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology

newsroom.ibm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 217 posts

Re: IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology

#41

Post by CAP_NET_ADMIN »

lp4v4n wrote: post #29
applfanboysbgon wrote: post #13

For anyone who needs it, a friendly reminder that CPU nm marketing is a complete fabrication and the physical size of transistors has zero relation to the marketing claims. These are not, in fact, physically sub 1 nm, despite the bombastic claims.

>These are not, in fact, physically sub 1 nm, despite the bombastic claims. Why? What's their real size? Not doubting you, just trying to understand and also trying to assess how exaggerated the marketing is.

At some point in the transistor scaling, the electrons started leaking across the gate, we've switched from 2D design to 3D structures to prevent that, so the actual physical gate pitch for like the TSMC 3nm is around 45 nm in distance.

Currently thrown around numbers mean the "equivalent performance/density" or something like that.

Re: IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology

#42

Post by floxy »

SoftTalker wrote: post #33
applfanboysbgon wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You had the right idea. Angstroms are not an SI unit. The SI units jump by three orders of magnitude at this scale: picometer, nanometer, micrometer, millimeter. (In the same way that meter jumps three orders of magnitude to kilometer[1], or millions to billions to trillions, etc.) [1] Technically there are intermediate SI units between meter and km but nobody uses them. There are not intermediate SI units between th…

Why above 1mm do we go by tens instead of thousands? We have centimeter (10 mm) then decimeter (100mm) then meter (1000mm). Then we jump to thousand again (kilometer).

>We have centimeter (10 mm) then decimeter (100mm)

Does anyone actually use those? I think I would throw up a little in my mouth if I saw either of those on a mechanical drawing.

Re: IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology

#43

Post by applfanboysbgon »

SoftTalker wrote: post #33
applfanboysbgon wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You had the right idea. Angstroms are not an SI unit. The SI units jump by three orders of magnitude at this scale: picometer, nanometer, micrometer, millimeter. (In the same way that meter jumps three orders of magnitude to kilometer[1], or millions to billions to trillions, etc.) [1] Technically there are intermediate SI units between meter and km but nobody uses them. There are not intermediate SI units between th…

Why above 1mm do we go by tens instead of thousands? We have centimeter (10 mm) then decimeter (100mm) then meter (1000mm). Then we jump to thousand again (kilometer).

Everyday necessity. The gap between mm and m is too large, there are many things in daily life that are better expressed in cm. SI units must strike a balance between three factors: not having so many denominations nobody can remember them; not having so few denominations that using them adds too much wordiness to daily life (150mm or 0.15m are wordier than 15cm); and a degree of familiarity with the everyday units people used before metric, to smooth the transition and encourage adoption.

Re: IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology

#44

Post by petra »

ijidak wrote: post #9
ginko wrote: post #3

IBM regularly announces silicon breakthroughs like this but I'm not aware of those ever becoming products. Is IBM mainly in the business of licensing their technology to big silicon manufacturers with stuff like this? Is it just marketing for their consulting business?

IBM's contributions to computing hardware and software are incalculable. So many breakthroughs in hard drives, chips, transistor density, and other aspects of computing have come out of their labs. Great to see them continuing to innovate. But, yeah, usually they partner and license. Over the years, they've spun off more and more of their hardware businesses.

It's great that they found a working business model for a pure r&d lab, and with such awesome results.

I wonder why isn't this more common.

Re: IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology

#46

Post by colechristensen »

formerly_proven wrote: post #39
buran77 wrote: post #10

> logic technology can extend for the first time below the 1 nm node, advancing the era of angstrom-level scaling, where dimensions approach the size of individual atoms. While transistor nodes now refer to a generation of manufacturing technology versus an exact physical dimension, IBM’s 0.7 nm technology—also referred to as 7 angstroms—demonstrates how continued scaling remains possible. Continuing the well establi…

> Continuing the well established trend of making bold claims about physical dimensions that have nothing to do with any of the structures in the chip, and the name scales better than the tech. We care about PPA (power, performance, area) and not how large or not-large features actually are. Comparing gate lengths between a 1980s planar transistor and a 2010s 3D FinFET or GAA transistor is obviously nonsense, the rel…

You have to admit it's getting progressively sillier though.

Re: IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology

#47

Post by Legend2440 »

buran77 wrote: post #10

> logic technology can extend for the first time below the 1 nm node, advancing the era of angstrom-level scaling, where dimensions approach the size of individual atoms. While transistor nodes now refer to a generation of manufacturing technology versus an exact physical dimension, IBM’s 0.7 nm technology—also referred to as 7 angstroms—demonstrates how continued scaling remains possible. Continuing the well establi…

It's been decades since published node sizes had any connection to actual feature size. Sadly this is just how it works in the semiconductor industry now.

Re: IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology

#48

Post by antisthenes »

micw wrote: post #17
applfanboysbgon wrote: post #13

For anyone who needs it, a friendly reminder that CPU nm marketing is a complete fabrication and the physical size of transistors has zero relation to the marketing claims. These are not, in fact, physically sub 1 nm, despite the bombastic claims.

So the title should be corrected. The did not debut sub nm chips at all.

That ship sailed long ago. I think it was around 32nm-22nm node when the marketing term started diverging from the physical feature size.

Re: IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology

#49

Post by wmf »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #35
roflmaostc wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah, where on the pictures is the 0.7nm feature? The linespacing is around 5nm. Is it the white line which is 0.7nm?

I really can't see where the 0.7nm is coming from. The white line looks like it's just an edge of a feature that is "15 rows of silicon atoms", which by some quick arithmetic on Wolfram Alpha has to be AT LEAST ~1.6nm, and the way the rows of atoms appear to be packed in that image and by the provided scale, it seems to be significantly more. Using the white line as a meaningful measurement seems to me to be more mis…

It's the equivalent performance of a 0.7 nm planar transistor. It's not about the feature size.

Re: IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology

#50

Post by colechristensen »

throw0101d wrote: post #45

One of the images has "15 rows of Si atoms". Is there a limit to how small things can go? A single atom? Is there a physical/molecular limit to Moore's Law?

I mean, you can't get smaller than an atom, there is some amount of plausibility of using individual atoms as at least the occasional computing element.

Beyond that, engineering a quark-gluon plasma as a processor? I'd watch that Star Trek episode. (we might fantasize about stuff like that but we're roughly monkeys smashing rocks together in a cave vs. building an iPhone sort of gap away from that kind of thing unless somebody has a really good idea)

Post reply on HN