News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on TSMC: 3nm EUV Development Progress Going Well. Parent comment

Re:TSMC: 3nm EUV Development Progress Going Well by PixyMisa on Saturday September 21, 2019 @02:15AM (#21033812)
The funny thing is, it doesn't matter. "2nm" is just marketing; nothing about it is actually 2nm in size. But that's okay, because that was true at 7nm and 14nm and even at 28nm.

So what 2nm really means is "better than 3nm".

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:TSMC: 3nm EUV Development Progress Going Well by JohnJamesRambo on Saturday September 21, 2019 @02:27AM (#21033845)
Why do we all go along with this charade? It’s so silly and unscientific. Why can’t we just call the things correctly?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:TSMC: 3nm EUV Development Progress Going Well by imtringued on Saturday September 21, 2019 @05:18AM (#21034309)
It is the same reason why we use millimeters of steel as a measurement of the armor performance of tanks even though they use composites of different materials.

Because it is easier to compare two numbers even if they are meaningless in reality.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:TSMC: 3nm EUV Development Progress Going Well by madez on Saturday September 21, 2019 @05:59AM (#21034420)
It would be better to stay quiet instead of comparing things incorrectly.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:TSMC: 3nm EUV Development Progress Going Well by gameswithgo on Saturday September 21, 2019 @09:21AM (#21035218)
there is no correct single number to use
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:TSMC: 3nm EUV Development Progress Going Well by dooglius on Saturday September 21, 2019 @09:53AM (#21035382)
SRAM density is a pretty good single meaningful number
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:TSMC: 3nm EUV Development Progress Going Well by sschueller on Saturday September 21, 2019 @04:36AM (#21034197)
Isn't the smallest trace/spacing 2nm? Most is larger but 2nm is possible for some traces/spaces.
[ Parent | on HN ]