this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2026
69 points (93.7% liked)
Technology
85746 readers
3536 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Very cool. Stop lying by saying they are less than one nanometer.
I'd say it's more an unfortunate consequence of confusing industry terminology. Sub-nanometer refers to the process, not the finished size of the chip. Smaller processes can fit more transistors in the same space.
They call it industry terminology, I call it false advertising. They could easily have used transistors per square mm.
The whole industry needs to be corrected.
The node sizes are backwards computed from the unit area of a one bit SRAM cell. It used to be the physical size of the smallest structure, e.g. a transistor gate.
I agree it's highly misleading. Also, people forget that the original Moore's law publication mention constant doubling time of transistors per area per unit of cost. So people keep pointing at multichip, thinned die stacking and 5 nm WSI like Cerebras to argue Moore scaling didn't die a long time ago, but ignore costs.
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_nm_process
I agree that there should be a better way to describe these things. Why not describe the actual size like we used to. Quite strange.
Because while they weren't shrinking in that aspect, other things were shrinking.
Its similar to how BMW decoupled their model numbers from displacement quite some time ago. Its where it sits in "the ranking".
Still no harm in changing the way in which we refer to the process to something more representative. It could signify a shift in manufacturing and you could spin it as a positive thing in marketing (which would surely not be lying).