Oleg Zabluda's blog
Wednesday, September 05, 2018
 
"""
"""
Wikichip and Semiengineering have both done a few of these, [comparing the different manufacturers and discuss some of the crazyness as we push towards single digit process sizes.]

https://semiengineering.com/big-trouble-at-3nm/
https://semiengineering.com/too-many-nodes/
https://semiengineering.com/the-future-of-finfets/

The old GF 7nm process (now canceled):

https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/641/iedm-2017-globalfoundries-7nm-process-cobalt-euv/

The (possibly redesigned) Intel 10nm (7nm-equivalent):
https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/525/iedm-2017-isscc-2018-intels-10nm-switching-to-cobalt-interconnects/

SimonRev wrote:

>Also, if they are marketing terms and not directly comparable numbers, why do each of the manufacturers describe their process sizes using the same numbers. In other words why does everyone use 14nm, 10 nm, and 7 nm. No one is touting 11 nm or 8 nm processes. Why?

Samsung 8nm:
https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/1443/vlsi-2018-samsungs-8nm-8lpp-a-10nm-extension/

Samsung 11nm:
https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/1425/vlsi-2018-samsungs-11nm-11lpp/ """
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/08/amd-to-use-tsmc-to-make-its-7nm-cpus-gpus-as-glofo-abandons-7nm-development/?comments=1&post=35908215
https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/1425/vls

Labels:


| |

Home

Powered by Blogger