Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Admirable_Royal_5119 t1_ixgh0w8 wrote

Reply to comment by HoboHash in TSMC Racing to 1nm, Investing $32 Billion for Fab: Report by brohymn80

2nm is not length of the transistor. They stopped using the actual dimensions when referring nm long time ago. Here 2nm means 1.5x faster than 3nm chips

29

kagoolx t1_ixgr8xe wrote

Oh man that’s disappointing. So not only are they not preparing for these chips here, but we no longer have a meaningful measure. Do you think this 1nm truly will scale performance wise as though it was actually 1nm?

6

Admirable_Royal_5119 t1_ixgtdq1 wrote

I'm no expert in this field from what i know, Smaller transistor is not always be better. When you shrink transistor smaller and smaller electrons will start jumping from nodes spontaneously due to quantum tunneling thus increasing the computational error. These 1nm will not have the same power efficient of actual 1nm chips but you can increase the performance by optimising layout architecture etc. It depends on the company making it, for example Intel 10nm outperforms some 7nm amd chips

6

Exist50 t1_ixik2up wrote

No, doesn't mean that either. If anything, Dennard scaling died earliest.

1