Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Kinexity t1_iv6fmnp wrote

TSMC isn't approaching 1 nm - they are approaching "1 nm". This name has nothing to do with any dimension of their transistors as it's only a marketing name.

87

iNstein t1_iv8asco wrote

Came looking for this. It is probably equivalent to 10nm over at Intel. One thing I always liked about Intel is they keep things fairly honest. TSMC doesn't even try.

12

Kinexity t1_iv8b9q3 wrote

Nah, it's probably around OG Intel 5 nm (before rebranding). TSMC's naming scheme is disingenous but they aren't that much behind if you look at transistor density.

7

Down_The_Rabbithole t1_iv9fyae wrote

Intel has stopped doing that this generation. As they got frustrated by consumers thinking they are behind in transistor density. So they have now renamed their 7nm as 5nm. And will rename their 5nm to 2.1nm to be more in line with the fake names of TSMC.

Samsung is the worst of all. Their "4nm" is equivalent to GlobalFoundry 12nm, Intel 14nm and TSMC 10nm.

4

justowen4 t1_iv8kqea wrote

Lol that’s hillllllllaaaaaarious

−2

justowen4 t1_iv8kur9 wrote

I love pat, and chips act is wise, but intel historically has been anything but opaque regarding practically anything related to chip marketing

3

[deleted] t1_iv780w3 wrote

And you’re comment has nothing to do wit legitimate progress being made

−24