IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology

Post by pjmlp » Fri, Jun 26, 2026, 6:50 AM UTC

wmf wrote: post #75

monirmamoun wrote: post #64

Two big problems 1) NOBODY knows what IBM's definition of "sub 1nm" means 2) IBM bullshits so much more than anyone including Intel (remember the "teleportation" ads years ago) that nobody is going to waste time researching what they mean in reality

I know what it means. Something isn't automatically bullshit because it's outside your field of expertise.

Post by bandrami » Fri, Jun 26, 2026, 7:19 AM UTC

measurablefunc wrote: post #89

u1hcw9nx wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike marketing terms, "nm density" is actually useful measure. It describes density measure where you can compare it to planar transistors from the 28-nanometer (28 nm) node around 2010 to 2011 and before. A "0.7 nm" node has equivalent transistor density as if we could have shrunk standard flat transistor node down to 0.7 nanometers.

Density is mass per volume so how are you comparing it to a planar transistor? Your units don't even match.

Post by jonsen » Fri, Jun 26, 2026, 8:06 AM UTC

short_sells_poo wrote: post #174

zmgsabst wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Population density isn’t planar, eg, why cities are denser than towns: their centers are more than 2D.

Population density is literally measured over a planar metric: people/km^2 You are suggesting it's measured over a cube volume?

Post by rvba » Fri, Jun 26, 2026, 8:15 AM UTC

bozhark wrote: post #150

Sub-Atomic level chips soon, then?

Post by wongarsu » Fri, Jun 26, 2026, 9:03 AM UTC

scythe wrote: post #82

adrian_b wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As it can be seen from the photos, horizontally the features are much bigger than 5 nm. For silicon, the gate length of a FET has a lower limit somewhere between 10 nm and 15 nm. The current CMOS manufacturing processes have not reached the limit yet. For making smaller transistors, a transition to other semiconductor materials will be necessary. The vertical thicknesses of various layers may be of only a few nanomet…

The scale bar on the far right "photo" (micrograph?) doesn't make sense. It is only slightly less than half the scale bar on the middle photo (10 nm), but the image is clearly scaled up by much more than 2x. Individual silicon atoms are circled in the right photo, but the covalent radius of silicon is about 0.11 nm, so they should be much smaller if the scale bar is accurate.