Talk:14 nm process

message: This page was renamed from "16 nanometer" to "14 nanometer" in June 2012. - Rod57 (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Page name - history

message: I noticed that this article is linked to technological singularity, as a further shrinking trending. That sounds science fiction and not something serious, based on actual research and papers. Any opinions about this?Daniel de França 02:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the point, any predictions beyond 16 nm are really in the realm of speculation and science fictions.--160.5.225.172 22:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it's a matter of speculation, but isn't there a more appropriate article to link to, e.g. one summarizing potential ways to move onwards in CPU microarchitecture? Sure, if there is no such article, this one may do, but otherwise, I think it would be nice if the subject could be narrowed down from "technological singularity" as that is an abstract, rather than technical, article on the subject. When the subject being linked from is purely technical. — Northgrove 17:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think that it's reasonable to say that projecting the decrease of semiconductor size along the current curve is "science fiction".  Intel and other companies are actively researching how to stay ahead of this curve, and they've been developing and releasing products consistent with the curve for decades.  Practically speaking, any microprocessor company who falls too far behind this curve will be out-competed.Kemery720 (talk) 05:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singularity link 

message: the roadmap of ITRS states 11nm in 2022 http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf but 11 nm should come by 2015 and not 2022.can anyone interpret the data and update it at wiki
: 2014 Gate Length should be 11nm. For 11nm node you´ll need a Gate Length around 5.6nm.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.158.15.88 (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  11 nm 

message: "In addition, the chemical effects of ionizing radiation also limit reliable resolution to about 50 nm"
This is unclear to me - 32nm exists and 22nm is due in 2012 - is this old information or is it referring to a specific technique? 203.217.150.68 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of date? 

message: The sentence "However, for Intel, the design rule at this node designation is actually about 30 nm." does not mean anything to me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.  What design rule?  What does this mean? 70.112.95.139 (talk) 04:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing it includes the spacing around the transistors.  Imperi (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 16 nm is 30 nm?

message: Intel is going to switch from 22nm directly to 14nm in 2013-2014, and after that to 10nm around 2015-2016. Also TSMC is going to use 14nm around 2014-2015. I guess every nanometer start to be important now when are are close to 10nm.  --91.213.255.7 (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources would be nice. Oldest I've found is May 2011 Feb 2011 - see (sub) section below - Rod57 (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Sadly GF website now only goes back to Jan 2013 and that URL and search don't seem to access the announcement. - Rod57 (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

text: In Feb 2011 Intel announced plans for 14nm Update: Intel to build fab for 14-nm chips- at that time someone commented "Intel used to refer to its 15 nm process, for example, when talking about Atom or lithography. Is it now referring to 14 nm because IBM/ARM recently did?" eg this IBM/ARM announcement Jan 2011 ? - Rod57 (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  14nm 

message: Who decided and when ? - Rod57 (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In Feb 2011 Intel announced plans for 14nm Update: Intel to build fab for 14-nm chips- at that time someone commented "Intel used to refer to its 15 nm process, for example, when talking about Atom or lithography. Is it now referring to 14 nm because IBM/ARM recently did?" eg this IBM/ARM announcement Jan 2011 ? - Rod57 (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why 14nm rather than the expected 16nm 

message: The comparison table from this section was removed for the same exact reasons I wrote here: Talk:10_nanometer#comparison_section_is_garbage. --CyberXRef☎ 06:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison table nonsense - revised 

message: June 2018  mentions "intel ... 14nm+, used for Skylake-SP/X" and "Cascade Lake ... 14nm++" - Should/could these be additional columns in the Comparison of process nodes table ? - Rod57 (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three versions of Intel 14nm process 

message: has 14LPE, 14LPP, 14LPC, 14LPU, and 11LPP ! Which of these should have a column in the table ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Samsung has multiple 14nm processes

message: Here is an article that uses the 12-nm process at Intel and UMC Announce New Foundry Collaboration. Rjluna2 (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intel and UMC Announce New Foundry Collaboration