Talk:5 nm process

Delete
4 nm is not in serious consideration and is not even a valid extrapolation. The gate oxide thickness at that point is already unrealistic.180.206.245.38 (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

CMOS does not have anything beyond 11nm.Its all speculation.semiconductor tech ends at 11nm.

from intel. https://www.zdnet.com/news/intel-scientists-find-wall-for-moores-law/133066 When the length of the gate gets below 5 nanometers, however, tunneling will begin to occur. Electrons will simply pass through the channel on their own, because the source and the drain will be extremely close. (A nanometer is a billionth of a meter.)

from kaku According to Kaku, once we get done to 5nm processes for chip production, silicon is finished. Any smaller and processors will just overheat. http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/theoretical-physicist-explains-why-moores-law-will-collapse-20120430/

122.161.237.115 (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Given Up
Editing the wikipedia is not something you can do these days without pledging your life to it. I tried to add some text but gave up after 20mins. Add this in if you feel it's relevant and have pledged your allegence:

Transistors one atom thick and ten atoms wide have been made by UK researchers. They were carved from graphene, predicted by some to one day oust silicon as the basis of future computing. Graphene, a material made from flat sheets of carbon in a honeycomb arrangement is a leading contender. A team at the University of Manchester, UK, have now used it to make some of the smallest transistors ever. Devices only 1 nm across that contain just a few carbons rings.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13730-atomthick-material-runs-rings-around-silicon.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nibinaear (talk • contribs) 17:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Technology available now
Semiconductor technology predicted for 2022 now available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adma.201104871/abstract;jsessionid=E5B672C47C20040884EB84CA9247B78A.d02t01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.255.239 (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (cite form:) Jimw338 (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Out of Date
Based on comments above coupled with citations from 2009 make it likely that there are changes in the probable fabrication technologies in the future. That leaves this article as mostly speculation. The article should be updated or submitted to AfD. Mikebar (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction
The last sentence of this first one probably needs to be made more specific somehow. Minitech.me (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've made some changes, hope that solves this issue. --91.45.135.45 (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Article should be renamed and reworked
It seems like about half of this article now discusses the possibilities for (and experimental successes of) transistors below the "5 nanometer" size. So, the name of the article has become a misnomer. The article should be named something like, "Smallest possible transistor" and have sections that describe what's commercially available now, what's already on commercial fab roadmaps, what should be possible with typical advances, and what we've seen from merely experimental efforts. Brianwc (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is not specific enough in naming - it is impossible to infer the nature of the article, just by reading the name. perhaps the name of this article could be changed to something more suitable, like 'Transistors of Smallest Possible Size'. lewisn-y13 (talk) 20:35 17 November 2014

I strongly disagree.

The name of the article derives from the Intel roadmap, and fits into a series of similarly named articles. It is not about the smallest possible transistors, it is about a projected scale of fabrication.

Since it is talking about future technology, there is obviously a degree of speculation involved, but as at 2012, Intel were confident that they could reach this scale. 146.199.37.113 (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Its about smallest transistor vs. smallest chip architecture, 5 nm is the smallest chip architecture on the Intel/IBM roadmap. The smallest transistor can work in isolation at near absolute zero. The smallest chip architecture is billions of transistors working together at room temperature. The "smallest transistor" portion is there for comparison only. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Subatomic Particles?
"Making transistors smaller than this will require either using elements with smaller atomic radii, or using subatomic particles—like electrons or protons—as functional transistors."

Is there even a concept how packing more than one transistor into one atom by using its constituent parts as individual transistors might work? This sounds like something I would call "bullshit" on a science fiction author for. It's just inconceivable how this might even work, let alone realistic to ever be done. So unless I'm missing some revolutionary principle in physics that makes this possible, I'd vote for at least making it abundantly clear that this is not on anyone's research agenda or else people might get the wrong idea. --Mudd1 (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Phosphorus gate
A gate is measured by the diameter, not the radius, so a gate with a single atom has twice the atom radius. So, 360 pm would be correct for the phosphorus atom. I make a correction. --MrBurns (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 5 nanometer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110528110652/http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20090822094141_Intel_Outlines_Process_Technology_Roadmap.html to http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20090822094141_Intel_Outlines_Process_Technology_Roadmap.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Gate pitch
I notice that a few articles mention "metal pitch" and "gate pitch", which are obvious to insiders, but since WP articles are intended to inform outsiders, shouldn't we present a definition? Jim.henderson (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * As I have no idea what they mean, and I used to work at TI in the IT department, and picked up a fair amount of knowledge just by osmosis, I have to vote yes. Outsiders have no chance of knowing what those terms mean, barring a one in a million situation. Dstar3k (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Salele
Given that the article 'Salele' links to does nothing more than expand the acronym, should it actually be linked, or should we expand it here? If there are no objections and I remember to come back in a month, I'll change it to do so. Dstar3k (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Intel Starts High-Volume EUV Production in Ireland
Intel will be starting high volume 4 nm process at Fab 34 in Leixlip, Ireland as described at Intel Starts High-Volume EUV Production in Ireland. Rjluna2 (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Let's rename the article
It includes both 5 and 4 nm processes, so I guess it's pertinent to call it something more encompassing, e.g. 4/5 nm process Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 10:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * During the last 20 years every "node" was followed by a "half-node" so do you plan to change the other article titles? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not always been the case and half nodes have mostly lost their initial meaning recently. Frankly speaking, I don't know what do. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)