Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #88473 > unrolled thread
| Started by | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-06-28 00:36 -0400 |
| Last post | 2026-06-29 01:34 -0400 |
| Articles | 9 on this page of 69 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-28 00:36 -0400
[HK01]IBM研發首款0.7nm晶片 指甲大小塞滿1000億電晶體 效能飆升50% "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 00:01 +0800
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-28 18:09 +0000
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 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-02 01:57 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-02 16:48 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-02 21:32 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-02 18:15 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-03 11:03 +0100
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-04 09:32 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-07-04 17:06 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-04 19:24 +0200
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-04 18:20 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-04 23:37 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-04 19:20 +0100
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-07-04 20:28 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-04 20:47 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-05 00:33 +0100
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-04 20:42 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-04 23:51 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-05 06:57 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-05 13:38 +0200
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-04 23:45 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-05 10:49 +0100
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-06 00:33 -0400
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 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-30 12:18 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-30 17:32 +0100
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-30 23:40 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 02:53 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-01 10:01 +0100
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 00:17 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-30 23:37 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 02:33 -0400
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
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-29 01:34 -0400
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-01 02:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <RdadnTh6Wu31JNn3nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #88550 |
On 6/30/26 19:40, rbowman wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:32:46 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> On 30/06/2026 17:18, c186282 wrote: >>> 'nanometre' ... sounds almost like a Euro spelling, kind >>> of like the Brits use 'colour' 🙂 >> >> A meter has a dial and is used to measure things. Metres are units of >> distance measurement. > > In a few days the US will celebrate the 250th anniversary of telling the > Brits to piss off. That includes their quaint Eurotrash spelling. > > I doubt there will be a 300th anniversary. Well, there WILL be - technically. Whether it will be anything LIKE the originally envisioned/realized USA is another question. MANY are keen on the Pol Pot Challenge ... We DID see a lot of this in the 1960s, exact same neo-Marxist slogans/rhetoric, but there WAS that "silent majority" of moderate Regular Joes/Janes then. No more. Insanity rules now. The most absurd rhetoric is widely believed as True. NOT good ! Hmmmm ... one New York candidate, media darling, wants to eliminate ALL cops/courts/jails etc. The Crowd just LOVES her ! In "A Clockwork Orange" the govt could not control the thugs. So, it HIRED them to be the new police and such. Very very bad - and it seems like what is being pushed NOW. Gangster Rule. The thugs are viewed as the new Red Guard - the brutal enforcers. The 'elite' decide, the thugs CRUSH all opponents. The NAZIs did this, as did Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot. Empower the evil nobodies and they WILL be your most loyal and fanatical adherents. Body-count unlimited. Did equal/fair/ethical/democratic disappear THIS fuckin' fast ? Maybe so. Back to overlords and conquerors and fanatics ......... I'm too old to live in some mountain bunker anymore - and TOO much of the world has gone more or less commie. Alas both Russia and China have DUMPED 'communism' - didn't work fer shit. So what, Namibia ? Do they have 'golden visas' ? FAR off-grid though ... nobody anywhere gives a shit ......
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-01 10:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1122l0u$1o867$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88550 |
On 01/07/2026 00:40, rbowman wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:32:46 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 30/06/2026 17:18, c186282 wrote:
>>> 'nanometre' ... sounds almost like a Euro spelling, kind
>>> of like the Brits use 'colour' 🙂
>>
>> A meter has a dial and is used to measure things. Metres are units of
>> distance measurement.
>
> In a few days the US will celebrate the 250th anniversary of telling the
> Brits to piss off. That includes their quaint Eurotrash spelling.
>
> I doubt there will be a 300th anniversary.
Agreed. Post Trump, there will be no USA
--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid
before him."
- Leo Tolstoy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-01 00:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <RdadnT16Wu05Cdn3nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #88539 |
On 6/30/26 12:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 30/06/2026 17:18, c186282 wrote: >> 'nanometre' ... sounds almost like a Euro spelling, kind >> of like the Brits use 'colour' 🙂 > > A meter has a dial and is used to measure things. Metres are units of > distance measurement. Yea yea ... but you're no fun :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 23:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <naj2ajFgpa7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #88538 |
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:18:47 -0400, c186282 wrote: > IBM may have just built the Final Chip, so to speak. Better stuff > will have to use very different technologies. IBM hasn't really built anything in a while. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Microelectronics A friend spent his entire career at Essex Junction and timed his retirement just right. He had interned at Fishkill when we were in college, got his PhD, and segued into a full time IBM employee. That's relatively unique in the tech industry. Interestingly the last time I visited him before I moved out of the area he had bought a PCjr and wasn't quite sure what to do with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-01 02:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <RdadnTl6Wu0qKdn3nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #88549 |
On 6/30/26 19:37, rbowman wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:18:47 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> IBM may have just built the Final Chip, so to speak. Better stuff >> will have to use very different technologies. > > IBM hasn't really built anything in a while. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Microelectronics They're BEHIND it ... same thing, same $$$ > A friend spent his entire career at Essex Junction and timed his > retirement just right. He had interned at Fishkill when we were in > college, got his PhD, and segued into a full time IBM employee. That's > relatively unique in the tech industry. "Dilbert" was based on IBM corporate culture/thinking. Yes, sometimes absurd/insane ... but it HAS worked long term. Maybe sometimes you NEED some insanity. Not selling my stock. > Interestingly the last time I visited him before I moved out of the area > he had bought a PCjr and wasn't quite sure what to do with it. PC-Jr wasn't a great computer - but would still get most everything you needed DONE. More or less affordable too. IBM was never really geared for Joe Consumer - for 'biz' and above levels instead. They could not compete with Compaq and friends and still make a buck, so they just dumped that. Their old ThinkPads were pretty good, but once they outsourced them, well, NOT so great. For USERS, more than x-amount of home computer power is usually just WASTED - advertising hype. I do have one fairly strong desktop box - set it up (Linux) and parked it in the junk room, never used since. My cheapo laptops and mini-boxes are powerful enough for anything *I* need now. Had to re-install my MX security/streaming box. The last install (MX) didn't go quite right and the main desktop would HINT, but never actually GET there. Burned a lot of CPU doing "nothing" too - box got very hot. DID save most of the valuable apps/configs though so it was fairly easy this time after re-install. Good install now, and have CHEATED - used the MX "snapshot" utility to create a custom ISO with all my goodies on it. IF it craps again I can go right back to a fully working install. Taped the thumb drive TO the unit so it won't get lost.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 23:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <naj1o0FgbvpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #88536 |
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]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-01 02:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <RdadnT56Wu1HMNn3nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #88548 |
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]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-01 04:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1122jcb$1ns5s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88562 |
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] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 01:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <VaKcnSZYBtQtnt_3nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #88494 |
On 6/28/26 14:09, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-06-28, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > >> https://www.techspot.com/news/112907-ibm-unveils-sub-1-nanometer-chip-architecture-stacks.html >> >> IBM unveils sub-1-nanometer chip architecture that stacks 100 >> billion transistors onto a fingernail-sized processor >> >> . . . >> >> Pretty impressive ... and stacking two (three?) layers >> really packs a lot in. >> >> NOT sure how they deal with the HEAT in the stacked >> design. >> >> 100 billion ... how many in the i4004 ? > > Dunno - but I do remember that manufacturers hit a wall for > a while when trying to get below 1 micrometer. It took some > time before memory chips larger than 64K became available. Found it in WikiPedia ... 2300 transistors ! And yea, I remember how long it took them to significantly shrink things. "Stacked" chips have long been of interest to save real estate and signal path, but again not revealed how IBM has managed to cope with the heat dissipation issues. The sub-nanometer bit ... that IS a significant step. BUT, the smaller you make things, the more likely natural radiation and even quantum effects will sneakily change bits. We've pushed Moore further than I thought he could be, but ...
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web