this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2026
672 points (99.3% liked)
People Twitter
10213 readers
983 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
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
Though there has recently been another step forward with transistors being able to get under a nanometer, 0.7 nm from 2 nm to be precise, and the last time a measurement needed to go another level smaller was in 1984 when it went from 1 micrometer to 0.8 micrometers.
That 0.7 nm one marks another jump in power while being significantly more efficient, which is I guess Moore's law living out of spite of not actually being a scientific law.
Also it's funny this is about the 2nd or third time I've seen someone say "Moore's law is dead struggling" since that 0.7 nm process was figured out not that long ago, though I can definitely see the "struggling" part.
Interesting! I'd always heard that the nanometer wars were mostly marketing fluff these past several years and the quoted numbers divorced from reality, but they're claiming genuinely sub-nanometer chips. And 3d chip designs, which is equally impressive. I haven't followed chip tech in a few years, but last I knew heat dissipation was still a huge bottleneck preventing stacked designs.
Though it's a shame they're focusing all that innovation towards the AI sector. Their consumer lines have been stagnant for a while now.
Intel's nanometer-ish numbers are BS. They call their 14nm process "Intel 10", their 10nm process "Intel 7", their 7nm "Intel 4", etc. As far as I know, other companies are more truthful.