Talk:14 nm process

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Electronics Mid‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as High-importance).

Page name - history

This page was renamed from "16 nanometer" to "14 nanometer" in June 2012. - Rod57 (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Singularity link

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

11 nm

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Out of date?

"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)[reply]

There is also some "As of 2009ing" which clearly marks this article as out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwlq (talk • contribs) 20:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

16 nm is 30 nm?

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)[reply]

I'm guessing it includes the spacing around the transistors. Imperi (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

14nm

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Announcement of 14nm technology by Globalfoundries: http://globalfoundries.com/technology/14XM.aspx -- 89.155.217.135 (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)zebarnabe[reply]

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)[reply]

Why 14nm rather than the expected 16nm

Who decided and when ? - Rod57 (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comparison table nonsense - revised

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)[reply]

( 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)[reply]

Three versions of Intel 14nm process

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)[reply]

Samsung has multiple 14nm processes

[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)[reply]

Intel and UMC Announce New Foundry Collaboration

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)[reply]