Continuing the well established trend of making bold claims about physical dimensions that have nothing to do with any of the structures in the chip, and the name scales better than the tech.
What they actually deliver is a "nanostack architecture" built with ~5nm features that according to them is comparable to a hypothetical real sub-1nm chip.
It's an impressive achievement nonetheless but it looks like the industry has a few too many marketers.
I know they won't go for an anything that makes as much sense as 5nm3, so I vote for "1nm hyper space"
We care about PPA (power, performance, area) and not how large or not-large features actually are. Comparing gate lengths between a 1980s planar transistor and a 2010s 3D FinFET or GAA transistor is obviously nonsense, the relatively aligned node names of the industry actually do make sense as a shortcut here.
Is there a limit to how small things can go? A single atom?
Is there a physical/molecular limit to Moore's Law?
Beyond that, engineering a quark-gluon plasma as a processor? I'd watch that Star Trek episode. (we might fantasize about stuff like that but we're roughly monkeys smashing rocks together in a cave vs. building an iPhone sort of gap away from that kind of thing unless somebody has a really good idea)
I'm guessing that this is the technology that is developed by Cymer (ASML subsidiary) in California, correct? Is there competing technology? I know xLight is trying to make some inroads on their own version of this EUV tech. I have not heard about any progress though.
Broadly speaking yes, this is the business model. IBM has been at this for many years with technology transfers, licensing agreements, support and other arrangements. Rapidus, Samsung, GlobalFoundries, ST, SMIC, AMD, etc. have all used IBM R&D work at various times for various nodes and products.
The cutting edge of semiconductors is a writhing mass of copulating tapeworms, and IBM lives deep inside that ball. For IBM, what this means is that when you buy one of the ASML machines to make products with this process, you'll pay IBM for the knowledge and support to actually get it working, or give them a cut, or something else, TBD, as circumstances warrant.
Why? What's their real size?
Not doubting you, just trying to understand and also trying to assess how exaggerated the marketing is.
Currently thrown around numbers mean the "equivalent performance/density" or something like that.
So many breakthroughs in hard drives, chips, transistor density, and other aspects of computing have come out of their labs.
Great to see them continuing to innovate.
But, yeah, usually they partner and license. Over the years, they've spun off more and more of their hardware businesses.
I wonder why isn't this more common.
Per IBM: "IBM Research at Albany [...] includes more than 100,000 square feet of semiconductor fabrication space"
I guess that is technically a R&D fab not a production one, but they definitely have in house fabrication capability
Otherwise, that chip tech sounds really awesome - at least for the future!
However, version 5 of the standard already deprecates that code point and has it normalized into the code for the Swedish letter U+00C5 Å `latin capital letter a with ring above`
(In the same way that meter jumps three orders of magnitude to kilometer[1], or millions to billions to trillions, etc.)
[1] Technically there are intermediate SI units between meter and km but nobody uses them. There are not intermediate SI units between the tiny ones.
We have centimeter (10 mm) then decimeter (100mm) then meter (1000mm). Then we jump to thousand again (kilometer).
Does anyone actually use those? I think I would throw up a little in my mouth if I saw either of those on a mechanical drawing.
1 Å = 100 pm. 1 pm = 0.01 Å.
1 angstrom = 0.1 nanometers, 100 picometers
1 nanometer = 10 angstroms, 1000 picometers