This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
90 nm process article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(Still editing,gathering notes)
-September 9, 2004 - Samsung Electronics 90nm 512Mb DDR SDRAM on 300mm base wafers.
2003 -Samsung
-- Jondel 03:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think the info. on leakage deserves it's own page. Leakage is a topic in itself, and deserves a full explanation. the1physicist 05:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
From a vandalism:(What about larger sizes for the earlier CPUs?)
When saying a microchip is made in the x nanometer process, what actually is x nanometers? One transistor? -- Abdull 17:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
In industry parlance, the process-node size is a statement of the transistor's "drawn length" (or was it gate-length?) Many parameters go into a manufacturing process, and channel-length is just 1 of them. The semiconductor industry as a whole loosely follows the ITRS roadmap. Suffice it to say "90nm" is another Meaningless Measure of Marketing, like shoe-size, because the actual drawn transistor-sizes vary from foundry to foundry, depending on target application (digital CMOS, mixed-signal, analog R/F, sensor, high-voltage, etc.) Chimborazo (volcano)
@ 2006-05-19 23:29Z
For consistency, this article should be moved to 90 nanometre. RedWolf 16:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
This article seems to be way out of date, as 65 nm has been used by Intel now for some time. Could someone knowledgeable update the article? Fawcett5 15:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-08-16 16:07Z
I agree. This article shouldn't require that much attention anymore. 218.168.143.177 11:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I dont think there is a need to write articles about different processes.This is 90nm then we will need articles for 65nm 45nm 32nm and so on. It is better that all such articles be merged into a single article discussing the importance of process dimensions and its details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.194.171 ( talk) 08:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)