According to ASML's reports last summer, the EUV source outputs 250 W. Are you talking about electrical power?
Right. I confess to a bit of conflation there, to bring home the full scary picture of an EUV stepper. Hardly your granddaddy's gestetner. Semiwiki says 300 watts of EUV is desirable for high volume. According to Wikipedia the input power rounds up to a megawatt.That doesn't directly heat the pellicle of course, but it does require a small creek's worth of cooling. The pellicle is relatively late in the optical path so only a fraction of the 300 watts goes through it (twice) but it's still a huge problem for a membrane just tens of nm thick.
Yes they will. And they will just be replacing some of the multipatterning steps of current 10nm node. If they claim the EUV team is working independently then they are lying. And if they end up needing EUV to bail out their current 10nm node then they are in for an even bigger disaster than they already have, because EUV is still months away from anything resembling high volume.
What part of "real" do you not understand? If you think that Intel's node name has something to do with any real dimension then please educate us about which dimension that is.
I am not confused about whether you are an ass or not. You claimed that Intel's process name has something to do with real numbers. It does not. My point.
Now go ahead and wank on about whether Intel's node name is conservative or not if you must. I did not debate that.
They have been working on 7nm in parallel though, so it's not out of the question they could pull something out of the bag.
Yes it is. Intel is using exactly the same ASML equipment as TSMC and Samsung. It is a very safe bet that they are using it at exactly the same resolution.
BTW, as of today, EUV is not anywhere close to ready for high volume production, only samples. One huge issue is pellicles, those things that cover masks to keep them clean. The problem is, all matter is opaque to EUV so the pellicle needs to be made ridiculously thin to pass enough light, and has to not burn up given the megawatt or so they pump into the optics to get enough light through the huge chain of mirrors.
There is just no way on God's green earth that Intel will set up a pure EUV fab line for its first attempt at EUV volume production. They will mix a few EUV steps into their deep EUV node, like everybody else.
Given that the diameter of a silicon atom is around 0.2nm, that means they are now building transistors out of something like 30-35 atoms across
Not even close. First, the silicon cubic lattice side is 0.543 nm, the atomic spacing is roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of that. When counting atoms, that's what you use, not atomic radius (which you seem to have misquoted as diameter.) Second, the gate pitch for TSMC's 7nm is 54 nm So each transistor covers an area something like 100-150 atoms on a side on the very crude assumption that the transistor is square, or about 10K to 40K atoms.
Somebody who actually does this for a living, please check my numbers.
It's an outright fact that intel measures their foundry processes FAR closer to real figures than the others
What real figures? There is no 14nm dimension in Intel's 14nm node either. Intel's node name may be more conservative than TSMC's, but nothing makes it "real". You are just blowing smoke out your ass.
In the real world, Intel has something around a 7% lead in IPC for the average load which includes some arguably Intel-optimized testing and some (most) agnostic.
Right, in return for a 60-100% advantage in price per core. Not hard to see why many gamers are deciding to spend those savings on the GPU.
This article is specifically about INTEL doing their own refresh to 7nm as in "intel 7nm" not "generic 7nm" - this will likely be similar to what TMSC claim to be 5nm.
I actually doubt that. I think it will be Intel just renaming their 10nm as 7nm and adding some EUV mask steps to justify it. So the days of endlessly re-explaining that "Intel 10nm is similar to TSMC 7nm" will be over, and that's all that will change. Intel is not going to magically leapfrog TSMC and retake the process lead.
Also, Intel 7nm chips will be superior to other "7nm" chips out there, since companies kind of just make up the numbers now. Intel 10nm = TMSC 7nm basically.
I'll take issue with that. The other two players are basically going to introduce EUV at the same key dimensions as their current deep EUV node, to replace some costly and error prone multipatterning steps. I would not be surprised to see multiple iterations here, until nearly all deep UV is replaced by EUV. That is all going to happen before 5nm has any chance at all of becoming reality.
For Intel to do otherwise would be the height of idiocy, practically ensuring that 7nm turns into a repeat of the 10nm fiasco. So what I think is, Intel will simply take the opportunity to rename their 10nm as 7nm without actually changing the dimensions. Thereby catching up with the rest of the industry in marketing terminology, if nothing else.
The cosmology of the first tiny fraction of a second of the universe is going to be stuck without evidence until someone invents a neutrino observatory.
Not really. KDE is more like the Windows DE than it is like CDE. And KDE is much slicker than CDE, in large part because of QT, which also makes it much cleaner inside than roll-yer-own CDE.
I really don't see any secret sauce to make people want to use this framework when Xamarin is free, supported, somewhat established...
And not under the control of Google in any way, so even if it was a decent cross platform toolkit, about which I am highly doubtful, it is not of the slightest interest to Google. See, controlling 85% of all the smartphones in the world puts Google in a position to promote its own cross platform toolkit, engineered to its taste and controlled entirely by itself. No idea whether its good or not, if it sucks then Google will suicide it and try another one.
Slashdot Mirror
According to ASML's reports last summer, the EUV source outputs 250 W. Are you talking about electrical power?
Right. I confess to a bit of conflation there, to bring home the full scary picture of an EUV stepper. Hardly your granddaddy's gestetner. Semiwiki says 300 watts of EUV is desirable for high volume. According to Wikipedia the input power rounds up to a megawatt.That doesn't directly heat the pellicle of course, but it does require a small creek's worth of cooling. The pellicle is relatively late in the optical path so only a fraction of the 300 watts goes through it (twice) but it's still a huge problem for a membrane just tens of nm thick.
Yet another content free post from you. Got any real dimensions to quote, or is there nothing about you except foul mouthed rhetoric?
Intel will now re-label their 10nm as 7nm.
Yes they will. And they will just be replacing some of the multipatterning steps of current 10nm node. If they claim the EUV team is working independently then they are lying. And if they end up needing EUV to bail out their current 10nm node then they are in for an even bigger disaster than they already have, because EUV is still months away from anything resembling high volume.
What part of "real" do you not understand? If you think that Intel's node name has something to do with any real dimension then please educate us about which dimension that is.
I am not confused about whether you are an ass or not. You claimed that Intel's process name has something to do with real numbers. It does not. My point.
Now go ahead and wank on about whether Intel's node name is conservative or not if you must. I did not debate that.
They have been working on 7nm in parallel though, so it's not out of the question they could pull something out of the bag.
Yes it is. Intel is using exactly the same ASML equipment as TSMC and Samsung. It is a very safe bet that they are using it at exactly the same resolution.
BTW, as of today, EUV is not anywhere close to ready for high volume production, only samples. One huge issue is pellicles, those things that cover masks to keep them clean. The problem is, all matter is opaque to EUV so the pellicle needs to be made ridiculously thin to pass enough light, and has to not burn up given the megawatt or so they pump into the optics to get enough light through the huge chain of mirrors.
There is just no way on God's green earth that Intel will set up a pure EUV fab line for its first attempt at EUV volume production. They will mix a few EUV steps into their deep EUV node, like everybody else.
Given that the diameter of a silicon atom is around 0.2nm, that means they are now building transistors out of something like 30-35 atoms across
Not even close. First, the silicon cubic lattice side is 0.543 nm, the atomic spacing is roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of that. When counting atoms, that's what you use, not atomic radius (which you seem to have misquoted as diameter.) Second, the gate pitch for TSMC's 7nm is 54 nm So each transistor covers an area something like 100-150 atoms on a side on the very crude assumption that the transistor is square, or about 10K to 40K atoms.
Somebody who actually does this for a living, please check my numbers.
It's an outright fact that intel measures their foundry processes FAR closer to real figures than the others
What real figures? There is no 14nm dimension in Intel's 14nm node either. Intel's node name may be more conservative than TSMC's, but nothing makes it "real". You are just blowing smoke out your ass.
In the real world, Intel has something around a 7% lead in IPC for the average load which includes some arguably Intel-optimized testing and some (most) agnostic.
Right, in return for a 60-100% advantage in price per core. Not hard to see why many gamers are deciding to spend those savings on the GPU.
This article is specifically about INTEL doing their own refresh to 7nm as in "intel 7nm" not "generic 7nm" - this will likely be similar to what TMSC claim to be 5nm.
I actually doubt that. I think it will be Intel just renaming their 10nm as 7nm and adding some EUV mask steps to justify it. So the days of endlessly re-explaining that "Intel 10nm is similar to TSMC 7nm" will be over, and that's all that will change. Intel is not going to magically leapfrog TSMC and retake the process lead.
Also, Intel 7nm chips will be superior to other "7nm" chips out there, since companies kind of just make up the numbers now. Intel 10nm = TMSC 7nm basically.
I'll take issue with that. The other two players are basically going to introduce EUV at the same key dimensions as their current deep EUV node, to replace some costly and error prone multipatterning steps. I would not be surprised to see multiple iterations here, until nearly all deep UV is replaced by EUV. That is all going to happen before 5nm has any chance at all of becoming reality.
For Intel to do otherwise would be the height of idiocy, practically ensuring that 7nm turns into a repeat of the 10nm fiasco. So what I think is, Intel will simply take the opportunity to rename their 10nm as 7nm without actually changing the dimensions. Thereby catching up with the rest of the industry in marketing terminology, if nothing else.
At this point we've turned it into a bigger issue than climate change ever was.
It is climate change, genius.
When you choose your burner, be very careful it doesn't have the Facebook app preinstalled.
how would anyone credibly be able to assess the widespread use of burner phones?
Be a Facebook employee. Have eyes and ears.
Please feel free to email your design for a neutrino telescope to Santa Claus at the North Pole.
The cosmology of the first tiny fraction of a second of the universe is going to be stuck without evidence until someone invents a neutrino observatory.
Like this one?
I cringe when stories talk about energy having mass.
Energy may not have mass but it does have gravity.
Give this press release a crackpot score. E.g.: 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann". So 20 points right there.
Not really. KDE is more like the Windows DE than it is like CDE. And KDE is much slicker than CDE, in large part because of QT, which also makes it much cleaner inside than roll-yer-own CDE.
I instantly thought the same thing.
That's two of you, at least there's that.
I really don't see any secret sauce to make people want to use this framework when Xamarin is free, supported, somewhat established...
And not under the control of Google in any way, so even if it was a decent cross platform toolkit, about which I am highly doubtful, it is not of the slightest interest to Google. See, controlling 85% of all the smartphones in the world puts Google in a position to promote its own cross platform toolkit, engineered to its taste and controlled entirely by itself. No idea whether its good or not, if it sucks then Google will suicide it and try another one.
Not really. KDE was designed for Linux then ported to BSD because it was better than any desktop developed on *nix.
You are confused about the difference between a fork and a backport.
KHTML is a fork of webkit
Wrong, it's the other way round.
Just run all that legacy Windows stuff on Wine.
Chrome comes from khtml, that's a Linux (KDE) project, not *nix.