| ▲ | SkyMarshal 5 days ago |
| > If Intel technically leapfrog TSMC and their 18nm is better than TSMC 20nm this year but; Think you mean 1.8nm, aka 18A. We're way past 18nm and 20nm. |
|
| ▲ | swores 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| How long ago did nm numbers stop being descriptions of size of chip and start being purely marketing names? About a decade? |
| |
| ▲ | danparsonson 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | https://www.extremetech.com/computing/296154-how-are-process... "For a long time, gate length (the length of the transistor gate) and half-pitch (half the distance between two identical features on a chip) matched the process node name, but the last time this was true was 1997" | | |
| ▲ | swores 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Oh wow, I didn't realise it has been that long! Thanks for sharing | | |
| ▲ | danparsonson 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Same here, I would have put it much more recently than that; I wonder how long before we'll be into negative numbers... |
|
| |
| ▲ | 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | bee_rider 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | While it is true that the nm numbers are bullshit, using the same made-up number helps keep the conversation on track, haha. |
|
|
| ▲ | ksec 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Yeah. That is what happen when I post it just before I felt asleep. Too late now can't edit it. |