Talk:16 nanometer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)