![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page was renamed from "16 nanometer" to "14 nanometer" in June 2012. - Rod57 ( talk) 09:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
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)
I would appreciate a reference for the atom width, and a clarification on which element and also if this includes the space between 2 atoms of the element or not. This sentence is hopelessly ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvbellomo ( talk • contribs) 16:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
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
The 11 nm wiki article has been created, but obviously there are no substantial details to fill it with. Even 16 nm is really far out in the future. While it is possible CMOS and silicon can scale that far, the question may be would we prefer another platform altogether, like III-V or nanotubes or biology, etc. Guiding light ( talk) 12:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
Announcement of 14nm technology by Globalfoundries:
http://globalfoundries.com/technology/14XM.aspx --
89.155.217.135 (
talk) 04:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)zebarnabe
Who decided and when ? - Rod57 ( talk) 01:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Anyone before Intel May 2011 ? ( Slide 3 says 14nm process P1272 first production in 2013 (and also lists 10nm P1274 for 2015). Might have come from the May 17 2011 investor meeting report.) - Rod57 ( talk) 02:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
( Seems it was mostly the associated text that was controversial. After some discussion/evolution an updated version has survived in both articles.) - Rod57 ( talk) 08:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
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)
[1] 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)
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)