Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

baphometromance t1_ixty75z wrote

Holy FUCK 3nm?

42

Jamus- t1_ixu17mk wrote

Yeah, that's what's most amazing to me. It's getting so small so quickly. 7nm is still epically powerful now. And we're already at less than half that.

32

Greedyanda t1_ixu50el wrote

This isn't actually the size. TSMC has changed their naming conventions years ago and the market has followed.

58

atlusblue t1_ixub7du wrote

So how does it work or what is the scheme name?

8

Shuber-Fuber t1_ixue0yj wrote

https://www.quora.com/Will-the-physical-size-of-the-processors-get-any-smaller-than-7-nano-metres/answer/Yowan-Rajcoomar?ch=15&oid=169904226&share=3d67d0a9&srid=i7kNj&target_type=answer

Basically, "3nm" doesn't refer to actual feature size anymore. It just means that there's an improvement from previous "x-nm" gen (maybe better density, smaller leakage current, faster gate speed, etc).

Because ultimately, it's performance. If you can keep the same size but, say, reduce the gate switching time by half, you functionally just have twice the performance for a given number of transistors.

37

poqpoq t1_ixv36gf wrote

So at some point with this convention will we use negative nm? Or will we just drop to 0.9nm 0.8nm etc?

5

jared555 t1_ixv9zzo wrote

Picometers would be the next logical step which means they probably won't use it.

10

poqpoq t1_ixvc3n0 wrote

Yeah that was why I was wondering about stuff like 0.9nm. Pm won’t be recognizable to consumers and consumers will be confused that it’s a larger number.

2

kyler000 t1_ixvsf1y wrote

To be fair, most consumers don't care about the size. They just want a computer/phone that's fast.

2

jared555 t1_ixvdlig wrote

Looks like the last time they had to worry about it was around the 386->486 transition.

1

glamdivitionen t1_ixwkbau wrote

Nah, we'll probably leave meters altogether and switch to Ångströms pretty soon.

2

Lurker_Since_Forever t1_ixwu28x wrote

It's based on transistor density. Something that is twice as dense is sqrt(2) times smaller feature size. So doubling transistor density down from 10 is 10 -> 7 -> 5 -> 3 -> 2 -> measuring it in angstroms or picometers.

2

WolfResponsible8483 t1_ixvf1lc wrote

Intel has dropped the "nm" completely. Their 10nm was rename to Intel 7 - it was very similar to TSMC 7nm anyway. Upcoming nodes are named Intel 4 and Intel 3.

4

urmyheartBeatStopR t1_ixvbmyc wrote

It's a gimmick not the real size. Anything 5nm and beyond is now just a marketing term for the technology generation like 2.0 and stuff.

They started to stack transistors (3d) and stuff now so they can fit more. It's not like they shrunk it even further yet.

3

danielbot t1_ixvttxx wrote

3nm is a bullshit marketing name. The minimum spacing between wires on "3nm" process is 24nm, the minimum spacing between gates is 48nm. Impressive enough, considering that the wavelength of the ultraviolet light used to create the circuits is 13nm. The actual density increase vs 5nm is roughy 1.25.

8

Try040221 t1_ixuom4m wrote

TSMC Racing to 1nm, Investing $32 Billion for Fab: Report

3

Myrang3r t1_ixvson8 wrote

The nm number marketed by fabs means nothing anymore, the actual transistor size is like 10x that.

We're still a long way from actual 3nm transistors.

3

aew360 t1_ixwcvpf wrote

I thought the article said only 5nm in the US but plans to change to 3nm later. Regardless that’s great for the US!

1

Frydendahl t1_ixwo2ff wrote

They're setting up a 1nm fab now, will probably start fabricating stuff in 5-7 years or so.

1

[deleted] t1_ixusng9 wrote

[deleted]

−12

All_Work_All_Play t1_ixuveof wrote

We're still a few orders of magnitude away from having enough functional qubits. Further, quantum computers are only good at s few specific things, and they'll need fast supporting intermediaries to feed them at reasonable speeds.

Tldr; yes but actually no.

9

nerd4code t1_ixwhy52 wrote

QC isn’t TC. If and when it makes it into the general market, it’ll be on an accelerator card. Eventually there’ll probably be stuff built into the same die as the CPU, but there’ll still have to be an actual CPU that drives things.

2