Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt > #44457 > unrolled thread

Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 13:11 +0800
    Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-29 01:39 -0400
      Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 19:20 +0800
        Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-29 12:57 +0100
        Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-30 05:14 -0400
          Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 21:51 +0800
            Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-30 12:06 -0400
              Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-30 18:51 +0000
                Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-30 17:58 -0400
                  Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 01:15 -0400
                    Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-01 10:15 +0100
                Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-30 23:51 +0000
                  Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 03:16 -0400
                    Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-01 10:05 +0100
                      Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-01 17:43 +0000
                        Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-01 20:23 +0100
                Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 00:48 -0400
              Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-30 23:45 +0000
                Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer.... physics? "quantum"? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 12:24 +0800
                Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 03:13 -0400
                  Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is quantitative philiosphy? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:29 +0800
                    Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is quantitative philiosphy? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 04:22 -0400
                      Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is quantitative philiosphy? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 23:41 +0800
                        Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is quantitative philiosphy? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-02 01:56 -0400
                          Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is FLAT? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 14:04 +0800
                            Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is FLAT? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-02 16:50 -0400
                              Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is FLAT? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-02 21:26 +0000
                                Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is FLAT? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-02 18:11 -0400
              Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-30 22:09 -0400
                Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 03:29 -0400
                  Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-01 10:11 +0100
                Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-01 10:08 +0100
          Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-30 16:27 +0100
            Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-30 23:28 +0000
              Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 02:04 -0400
                Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-07-01 04:33 -0400

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#44499 — Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is quantitative philiosphy?

On 7/1/2026 3:13 PM, c186282 wrote:
> On 6/30/26 19:45, rbowman wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:06:38 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>
>> Physics was a 4 semester course and the 4th was quantum when it started to
>> get weird. On one essay test I wrote about Heisenberg's uncertainty
>> principle versus Heidegger's principle uncertainty. Fortunately the
>> professor had a sense of humor or maybe he realized how far off the beaten
>> path the original quantum guys got when you start thinking about the Being
>> of beings.
> 
>     Hey, all we need is a "Heisenberg Compensator" :-)
> 
>     As for the old Quantum Guys (maybe a few gals)...

So quantum mechanics is just pig-cheat? ;)
It's just mathematical philosophy?
Quantitative Philiosphy? :)

-- 

    @~@   Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
   / v \  May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
  /( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
    ^ ^   https://github.com/changmw/changmw
          The game is afoot... Meow...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44500 — Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is quantitative philiosphy?

On 7/1/26 03:29, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 7/1/2026 3:13 PM, c186282 wrote:
>> On 6/30/26 19:45, rbowman wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:06:38 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>>
>>> Physics was a 4 semester course and the 4th was quantum when it 
>>> started to
>>> get weird. On one essay test I wrote about Heisenberg's uncertainty
>>> principle versus Heidegger's principle uncertainty. Fortunately the
>>> professor had a sense of humor or maybe he realized how far off the 
>>> beaten
>>> path the original quantum guys got when you start thinking about the 
>>> Being
>>> of beings.
>>
>>     Hey, all we need is a "Heisenberg Compensator" :-)
>>
>>     As for the old Quantum Guys (maybe a few gals)...
> 
> So quantum mechanics is just pig-cheat? ;)
> It's just mathematical philosophy?
> Quantitative Philiosphy? :)

   No, VERY quantitative.

   Did you expect the universe to appeal
   to anthropomorphic ideals ?

   It's NOT *ABOUT* US.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44507 — Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is quantitative philiosphy?

On 7/1/2026 4:22 PM, c186282 wrote:
> On 7/1/26 03:29, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>
>> So quantum mechanics is just pig-cheat? ;)
>> It's just mathematical philosophy?
>> Quantitative Philiosphy? :)
> 
>     No, VERY quantitative.
> 
>     Did you expect the universe to appeal
>     to anthropomorphic ideals ?
> 
>     It's NOT *ABOUT* US.

I see the world with my naked eyes.
NOT wearing mathematical eyeglasse. :)

-- 

    @~@   Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
   / v \  May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
  /( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
    ^ ^   https://github.com/changmw/changmw
          The game is afoot... Meow...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44511 — Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is quantitative philiosphy?

On 7/1/26 11:41, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 7/1/2026 4:22 PM, c186282 wrote:
>> On 7/1/26 03:29, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>>
>>> So quantum mechanics is just pig-cheat? ;)
>>> It's just mathematical philosophy?
>>> Quantitative Philiosphy? :)
>>
>>     No, VERY quantitative.
>>
>>     Did you expect the universe to appeal
>>     to anthropomorphic ideals ?
>>
>>     It's NOT *ABOUT* US.
> 
> I see the world with my naked eyes.
> NOT wearing mathematical eyeglasse. :)


   Then you're only seeing half of it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44512 — Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is FLAT?

On 7/2/2026 1:56 PM, c186282 wrote:
> On 7/1/26 11:41, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>
>> I see the world with my naked eyes.
>> NOT wearing mathematical eyeglasse. :)
> 
>     Then you're only seeing half of it.


Okay, is the other half of it FLAT? ;)

-- 

    @~@   Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
   / v \  May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
  /( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
    ^ ^   https://github.com/changmw/changmw
          The game is afoot... Meow...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44513 — Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is FLAT?

On 7/2/26 02:04, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 7/2/2026 1:56 PM, c186282 wrote:
>> On 7/1/26 11:41, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>>
>>> I see the world with my naked eyes.
>>> NOT wearing mathematical eyeglasse. :)
>>
>>     Then you're only seeing half of it.
> 
> 
> Okay, is the other half of it FLAT? ;)


   No, the most detailed tapestry ever.

   The Numbers can take you far beyond
   anything your senses can deliver,

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44514 — Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is FLAT?

On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 16:50:44 -0400, c186282 wrote:

> On 7/2/26 02:04, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>> On 7/2/2026 1:56 PM, c186282 wrote:
>>> On 7/1/26 11:41, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I see the world with my naked eyes. NOT wearing mathematical
>>>> eyeglasse. :)
>>>
>>>     Then you're only seeing half of it.
>> 
>> 
>> Okay, is the other half of it FLAT? ;)
> 
> 
>    No, the most detailed tapestry ever.
> 
>    The Numbers can take you far beyond anything your senses can deliver,

Spoken like a true Pythagorean. Their Numbers were as real as Plato's 
Forms. 

I've always thought it odd 'Platonic realism' refers to the unreal.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44515 — Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is FLAT?

On 7/2/26 17:26, rbowman wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 16:50:44 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>> On 7/2/26 02:04, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>> On 7/2/2026 1:56 PM, c186282 wrote:
>>>> On 7/1/26 11:41, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I see the world with my naked eyes. NOT wearing mathematical
>>>>> eyeglasse. :)
>>>>
>>>>      Then you're only seeing half of it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Okay, is the other half of it FLAT? ;)
>>
>>
>>     No, the most detailed tapestry ever.
>>
>>     The Numbers can take you far beyond anything your senses can deliver,
> 
> Spoken like a true Pythagorean. Their Numbers were as real as Plato's
> Forms.

   Well, they were kind of NEW at the numbers
   back then  :-)

   Quantum mechanics came along a bit later.

> I've always thought it odd 'Platonic realism' refers to the unreal.

   IS kinda odd.

   Anyway, The Numbers have improved, and improved our
   understanding, over time - 'philosophy', not so much.
   Same old bullshitting about bullshit under the delusion
   that Answers will arise.

   Or maybe just that if you confuse people enough they
   will drop coins on yer collection plate ?  :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44491

On Tue, 6/30/2026 12:06 PM, c186282 wrote:
> On 6/30/26 09:51, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>> On 6/30/2026 5:14 PM, c186282 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Can you fabricate 0.000000...0000000001 nm chips?
>>>>
>>>> Is zero the seal or wall? :)
>>>
>>>     Um, pretty quick you get to ATOMS ... and, for any
>>>     normal electronics, that's IT.
>>
>>
>> You cannot have 0.000000....00 nm chip.
>>
>> That's a void, empty, nothing. :)
> 
>   "Electronics" are now about literal atom-thick structures.
>   Can't go any smaller.
> 
>   Any better future stuff will have to exploit quantum
>   effects - get more bang for yer nanometer. Alas quantum
>   stuff isn't as deterministic as bulk matter devices
>   and suffer from the uncertainty principle.

But only if there are properties that actually have some use.

A quick Google tells me there is a thing called "spintronics"
which can make insulators. The materials are "foreign" to
current semiconductors (so the materials may not "play nice"
with the rest of the substrate). And having an insulator,
does not give me a switching transistor.

Historically, we've made good use of quantum mechanical "tunneling",
which is finding a way underneath energy barriers. We have one
afternoon lab using one of these (these diodes are used in
time domain reflectometry for the nice sharp edges). I put mine right
across the terminals of an HP gray-plastic power supply, the one with
the course and fine controls. And you can use the power supply
as a curve tracer, and walk the diode right up to the
point where it switches. The power supply has amazing
characteristics at DC (not so much at HF). And that was
a fun afternoon of farting around.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_diode

And that's an illustration of an effect, it's not me predicting
they'll run right out and make something out of that.

This is another example of tunneling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory#Fowler%E2%80%93Nordheim_tunneling

   "The Fowler-Nordheim tunneling effect is reversible, so electrons
    can be added to or removed from the floating gate, processes
    traditionally known as writing and erasing."

There's no uncertainty principle there, you need enough electrons
to maintain noise immunity.

If there is some property that can be used, and is not a flaky pastry,
then it will be introduced slowly. There is too much money involved
for this to be just "science", it's "business" too. And that affects
how you do it.

     Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44498

On 6/30/26 22:09, Paul wrote:
> On Tue, 6/30/2026 12:06 PM, c186282 wrote:
>> On 6/30/26 09:51, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>> On 6/30/2026 5:14 PM, c186282 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you fabricate 0.000000...0000000001 nm chips?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is zero the seal or wall? :)
>>>>
>>>>      Um, pretty quick you get to ATOMS ... and, for any
>>>>      normal electronics, that's IT.
>>>
>>>
>>> You cannot have 0.000000....00 nm chip.
>>>
>>> That's a void, empty, nothing. :)
>>
>>    "Electronics" are now about literal atom-thick structures.
>>    Can't go any smaller.
>>
>>    Any better future stuff will have to exploit quantum
>>    effects - get more bang for yer nanometer. Alas quantum
>>    stuff isn't as deterministic as bulk matter devices
>>    and suffer from the uncertainty principle.
> 
> But only if there are properties that actually have some use.

   True.

   There do seem to be SOME uses - but "general utility"
   is not so clear.

> A quick Google tells me there is a thing called "spintronics"
> which can make insulators. The materials are "foreign" to
> current semiconductors (so the materials may not "play nice"
> with the rest of the substrate). And having an insulator,
> does not give me a switching transistor.

   Umm, no. "SpinTronics" may have uses - but, as you said,
   it does not segway neatly with existing tech.

   (fun - my spell-checker thing wants "Segway" - the
   two-wheeled commercial thingie :-)

   There are all sorts of exotic potential tech - weird
   probability waves spreading over 2-D surfaces and such.
   Can they be made into USEFUL technologies ? Maybe 10%
   and only for specialized uses.

   Existing transistor tech - it's deterministic, solid.
   Alas with the IBM product we've probably reached the
   bitter END of conventional electronics. Some seriously
   different stuff will be needed for The Future if we
   need more speed/density.

> Historically, we've made good use of quantum mechanical "tunneling",
> which is finding a way underneath energy barriers. We have one
> afternoon lab using one of these (these diodes are used in
> time domain reflectometry for the nice sharp edges). I put mine right
> across the terminals of an HP gray-plastic power supply, the one with
> the course and fine controls. And you can use the power supply
> as a curve tracer, and walk the diode right up to the
> point where it switches. The power supply has amazing
> characteristics at DC (not so much at HF). And that was
> a fun afternoon of farting around.
> 
>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_diode
> 
> And that's an illustration of an effect, it's not me predicting
> they'll run right out and make something out of that.
> 
> This is another example of tunneling.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory#Fowler%E2%80%93Nordheim_tunneling
> 
>     "The Fowler-Nordheim tunneling effect is reversible, so electrons
>      can be added to or removed from the floating gate, processes
>      traditionally known as writing and erasing."
> 
> There's no uncertainty principle there, you need enough electrons
> to maintain noise immunity.


   NO longer sure if you go below 1nm alas.


> If there is some property that can be used, and is not a flaky pastry,
> then it will be introduced slowly. There is too much money involved
> for this to be just "science", it's "business" too. And that affects
> how you do it.

   Expect a LOT of flaky pastries in short order.

   One or two will be useful/do-able.

   The rest ....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44504

On 01/07/2026 08:29, c186282 wrote:

>    Umm, no. "SpinTronics" may have uses - but, as you said,
>    it does not segway neatly with existing tech.
> 
SEGUE
 From the iItalian. Same root as 'sequence'

>    (fun - my spell-checker thing wants "Segway" - the
>    two-wheeled commercial thingie :-)
> 
>  ...
>    Existing transistor tech - it's deterministic, solid.

No. its probabilistic. Nu the probabilities are very c;lose to unity.


>    Alas with the IBM product we've probably reached the
>    bitter END of conventional electronics. Some seriously
>    different stuff will be needed for The Future if we
>    need more speed/density.
> 
Waffle.



-- 
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have 
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44503

On 01/07/2026 03:09, Paul wrote:
> There's no uncertainty principle there, you need enough electrons
> to maintain noise immunity.

Quantum uncertainty becomes macro certainty as the probability 
approaches unity.

In terms of nanometre sized chip technology, that is a measurable 
distance from unity


-- 
“The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to 
fill the world with fools.”

Herbert Spencer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44484

On 30/06/2026 10:14, c186282 wrote:
> On 6/29/26 07:20, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>> On 6/29/2026 1:39 PM, c186282 wrote:
>>>
>>>     Amazed they were able to get this small - but do
>>>     expect a wall/seal is pretty much here. We're
>>>     talking kinda atomic dimensions now - nowhere else
>>>     to go using any conventional approaches. Anything
>>>     much further won't be 'electronics' as we know it,
>>>     some kind of weird quantum stuff.
>>>
>>>     STABLE deca-state logic maybe ?
>>
>> Can you fabricate 0.000000...0000000001 nm chips?
>>
>> Is zero the seal or wall? :)
> 
>    Um, pretty quick you get to ATOMS ... and, for any
>    normal electronics, that's IT.
> 
Actually the limit is a fair bit above atoms

GOOGLE AI
=========
"Transistor nodes have shrunk dramatically, with leading developers like 
IBM advancing into the sub-1 nanometre realm (e.g., 0.7-nanometer tech). 
However, absolute limits are rapidly approaching due to several factors:

     Quantum Tunnelling: At sizes measuring just a few atoms across, 
electrons no longer stay neatly in their channels. They start randomly 
leaking or tunnelling through insulation barriers, resulting in massive 
power loss and data corruption.

     Atomic Boundary: The absolute physical limit for a silicon 
semiconductor is effectively constrained by the size of the silicon 
crystal unit cell (about 0.54 nm).

      Heat Density: Shrinking transistors allows more components to be 
packed together, but it creates extreme heat concentrations. The 
challenge shifts from building them to keeping them cool without burning 
out£

.....

I note that google can't spall 'nanometre' OR 'tunnelling; correctly

...
-- 
Any fool can believe in principles -  and most of them do!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44488

On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 16:27:24 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> "Transistor nodes have shrunk dramatically, with leading developers like
> IBM advancing into the sub-1 nanometre realm (e.g., 0.7-nanometer tech).
> However, absolute limits are rapidly approaching due to several factors:

iirc terms like '5 nm process' no longer refer to any physical dimension 
so I'm curious what the actual gate size is on 0.7 nm tech. 

IBM sold their fab lines to GlobalFoundries and their '7 nm' tech was 
closer to Intel's 10 nm. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44495

On 6/30/26 19:28, rbowman wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 16:27:24 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 
>> "Transistor nodes have shrunk dramatically, with leading developers like
>> IBM advancing into the sub-1 nanometre realm (e.g., 0.7-nanometer tech).
>> However, absolute limits are rapidly approaching due to several factors:
> 
> iirc terms like '5 nm process' no longer refer to any physical dimension
> so I'm curious what the actual gate size is on 0.7 nm tech.
> 
> IBM sold their fab lines to GlobalFoundries and their '7 nm' tech was
> closer to Intel's 10 nm.

   Well, SEEMS like they've done the 1, or <1, nm
   stacked chip.

   They'll license that. Old company, but still kinda
   out-front in their tech AND biz sense. NOT gonna
   dump my stock.

   Alas, as mentioned here, this IS about as far as
   conventional electronics can go. Under 1nm the
   quantum issues fuck up everything.

   SO - we need entirely new tech paradigms now.
   For 'electronics' we HAVE crashed into Dr. Moore.

   Meanwhile, the stacked chips DO allow us to do
   more, if not faster, in the same chip profiles.
   There's money in that - for now.

   Five years ... as said, we need Something Completely
   Different. Maybe I'll be dead by then and won't care,
   maybe not, but "transistors" aren't gonna go any
   faster even as "AI" and a lot more DEMAND that.

   Still wonder if "deca-state" logic, where the
   intermediate values are stable and DON'T eat up
   power, can be done. Some 'latching', 'layered',
   design maybe. A few more layers per transistor.
   I have this vague vision in my head ... quantified
   analog, so to speak. One transistor, 2^10th
   possible values.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44501

On Wed, 7/1/2026 2:04 AM, c186282 wrote:
> On 6/30/26 19:28, rbowman wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 16:27:24 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> "Transistor nodes have shrunk dramatically, with leading developers like
>>> IBM advancing into the sub-1 nanometre realm (e.g., 0.7-nanometer tech).
>>> However, absolute limits are rapidly approaching due to several factors:
>>
>> iirc terms like '5 nm process' no longer refer to any physical dimension
>> so I'm curious what the actual gate size is on 0.7 nm tech.
>>
>> IBM sold their fab lines to GlobalFoundries and their '7 nm' tech was
>> closer to Intel's 10 nm.
> 
>   Well, SEEMS like they've done the 1, or <1, nm
>   stacked chip.

You will need to see the dimensions of the whole thing,
to see which "chance" dimension is 1nm.

  https://newsroom.ibm.com/2026-06-25-ibm-debuts-worlds-first-sub-1-nanometer-chip-technology

     https://filecache.mediaroom.com/mr5mr_ibmnewsroom/201436/IBM-Research_TEM_4.jpg

The diagram here, is too hard to read. The FINFET is on the left. The Gate All Around
device in the center. The stacked P channel and N channel on the right.

  https://www.eetimes.com/ibm-shows-sub-1-nm-chips-targeting-production-in-5-years/

They talk here, of two wafers being bonded vertically. Which might
be how the scheme maintains a semblance of manufacturability. Imagine
an 18" (450mm" wafer, aligned at the atomic level.

  https://www.servethehome.com/ibm-outlines-sub-1nm-nanostack-transistor-technology/

    Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt

csiph-web