News TSMC to Initiate 1.4nm Process Technology R&D

[Admin]

TSMC may announce 1.4nm pathfinding, research and development in June.

TSMC to Initiate 1.4nm Process Technology R&D : Read more

 

[tennis2]

I feel like fractions of nm is so much harder to garner a relative % difference from compared to integers. 2nm to 1.4nm is the same % as 7nm to 5nm, yet is seems so much less significant.

 

[peachpuff]

Intel: pfffft our 10nm is just as good...

 

[gfg]

I feel like fractions of nm is so much harder to garner a relative % difference from compared to integers. 2nm to 1.4nm is the same % as 7nm to 5nm, yet is seems so much less significant.

are ~logarithmic equivalents, not linear scales

proceso (nm)	note i vs i-1	nodo i vs nodo 45 nm
45	1	1
28	0,62x	1,61x
22	0,79x	2,05x
14	0,64x	3,21x
7	0,50x	6,43x
5	0,71x	9,00x
3	0,60x	15,00x
1,4	0,47x	32,14x

 

[AtrociKitty]

Intel: pfffft our 10nm is just as good...

I'm glad Intel rebranded, because too many people misunderstood the actual ranking of nodes when you compared them based on half-pitch scaling of an equivalent (in transistor density) planar transistor node:

15. 32nm Intel​

14. 28nm TSMC / 28nm UMC / 28nm Samsung/GlobalFoundries/IMB​

13. 22nm Intel /22nm IBM​

12. 20nm TSMC /20nm Samsung/20nm Intel (marketed as “22FFL)​

11. 18nm TSMC (marketed as “16nm”) / 18nm Samsung/GF (marketed as “14nm”)​

10. 17nm GF (marketed as “12nm” (12LP) by GF)​

09. 16nm TSMC (marketed as “12nm” (12FFC) by TSMC)​

08. 14nm Intel / 14nm Samsung (marketed as “10nm” by Samsung)​

07. 13nm Samsung (marketed as “8nm” by Samsung)​

06. 10nm TSMC (marketed as “7nm” (N7/N7P))/ 10nm Samsung (marketed as “7nm”)​

05. 9nm Intel (marketed as “10nm”)/ 9nm TSMC (marketed as 7nm (N7+))​

04. 6.7nm TSMC (marketed as “5nm”)​

03. 6.4nm Intel (marketed as “7nm”)​

02. 5nm TSMC (marketed as “3nm”)​

01. 4.5nm Intel (marketed as “5nm”)​

 

[gfg]

is logarithmic...
65 vs 45 = ~ - 30% area...
7 vs 5 = ~ -30% area...
2 vs 1.4 = ~ -30% area

65-45= 20 nm and 2 vs 1.4 = just 0.6 oooo noooo.... by -30% node by node....

 

[tennis2]

Intel: pfffft our 10nm is just as good...

"But is it REALLY 1.4nm???

 

[derekullo]

TSMC to Initiate Quark Process Technology R&D.

Physicists puzzled.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

If you're going to use decimal points, shouldn't we just migrate to Angstroms at that point?

 

[tennis2]

If you're going to use decimal points, shouldn't we just migrate to Angstroms at that point?

IIRC that's what Intel is doing.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

IIRC that's what Intel is doing.

True, Intel is going to do that. What about the rest of the foundaries, when are they going to start using Angstroms?

 

[Anthony Abelardo]

is logarithmic...
65 vs 45 = ~ - 30% area...
7 vs 5 = ~ -30% area...
2 vs 1.4 = ~ -30% area

65-45= 20 nm and 2 vs 1.4 = just 0.6 oooo noooo.... by -30% node by node....

As they get smaller does it cost "less" to make?