It would not be a nanoprocessor. A 16 nanometer "process"
(not processor) doesn't mean the cpu is 16 nanometers in size.
Think about it; you can easily see the cpu in your computer without
a microscope.
Opteron versus Xeon
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 2056
- Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:31 am
- Location: North Carolina, USA
-
- Posts: 5258
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:31 pm
- Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Re: Opteron versus Xeon
So you would only need a magnifying glass to see a microprocessor.CRoberson wrote:It would not be a nanoprocessor. A 16 nanometer "process"
(not processor) doesn't mean the cpu is 16 nanometers in size.
Think about it; you can easily see the cpu in your computer without
a microscope.
Best
Dan H.
-
- Posts: 2307
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:41 pm
- Location: Brownsville Texas USA
Re: Opteron versus Xeon
Not just a magnifying glass .... you need a microscope to see a microprocessor.Dan Honeycutt wrote:So you would only need a magnifying glass to see a microprocessor.CRoberson wrote:It would not be a nanoprocessor. A 16 nanometer "process"
(not processor) doesn't mean the cpu is 16 nanometers in size.
Think about it; you can easily see the cpu in your computer without
a microscope.
Best
Dan H.
- Robin Smith
Re: Opteron versus Xeon
You didn't read what I wrote. I said a true nanoprocessor would use a 1 nanometer process, not 16.CRoberson wrote:It would not be a nanoprocessor. A 16 nanometer "process"
(not processor) doesn't mean the cpu is 16 nanometers in size.
Think about it; you can easily see the cpu in your computer without
a microscope.
Try and view the circuits without a microscope, you can't! We're not talking about the size of the die, or the overall size of the chip, but rather the size of a single logic gate.
By your reasoning microprocessors are not microprocessors as you can view the chip!
Think About It!
-
- Posts: 5258
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:31 pm
- Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Re: Opteron versus Xeon
I was just going by what Charles said. If you need a microscope to see a nanoprocessor I figured the microprocessor wouldn't require more than a magnifying glass. Now, if what you say is right then Charles is wrong and you'll need a nanoscope to see the nanoprocessor.smirobth wrote:Not just a magnifying glass .... you need a microscope to see a microprocessor.Dan Honeycutt wrote:So you would only need a magnifying glass to see a microprocessor.CRoberson wrote:It would not be a nanoprocessor. A 16 nanometer "process"
(not processor) doesn't mean the cpu is 16 nanometers in size.
Think about it; you can easily see the cpu in your computer without
a microscope.
Best
Dan H.
Best
Dan H.
Re: Opteron versus Xeon
One Nanoscope in the makingDan Honeycutt wrote:I was just going by what Charles said. If you need a microscope to see a nanoprocessor I figured the microprocessor wouldn't require more than a magnifying glass. Now, if what you say is right then Charles is wrong and you'll need a nanoscope to see the nanoprocessor.smirobth wrote:Not just a magnifying glass .... you need a microscope to see a microprocessor.Dan Honeycutt wrote:So you would only need a magnifying glass to see a microprocessor.CRoberson wrote:It would not be a nanoprocessor. A 16 nanometer "process"
(not processor) doesn't mean the cpu is 16 nanometers in size.
Think about it; you can easily see the cpu in your computer without
a microscope.
Best
Dan H.
Best
Dan H.
Nano Nano Regards,
Robin Williams
-
- Posts: 2851
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:01 pm
- Location: Irvine, CA, USA
Re: Opteron versus Xeon
I think nanoscope really would make a good generic name for the STM and all of its cousins.Terry McCracken wrote: :lol: One Nanoscope in the making :wink:
Nano Nano Regards,
Robin Williams
The first microprocessor, the Intel 4004, had a feature size of ten microns, so a sixteen nanometer processor would be getting close to one thousandth the size.
-
- Posts: 20943
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
- Location: Birmingham, AL
Re: Opteron versus Xeon
None of this matters as you can't make a gate with 2 atoms, so it's a moot point...Terry McCracken wrote:You didn't read what I wrote. I said a true nanoprocessor would use a 1 nanometer process, not 16.CRoberson wrote:It would not be a nanoprocessor. A 16 nanometer "process"
(not processor) doesn't mean the cpu is 16 nanometers in size.
Think about it; you can easily see the cpu in your computer without
a microscope.
Try and view the circuits without a microscope, you can't! We're not talking about the size of the die, or the overall size of the chip, but rather the size of a single logic gate.
By your reasoning microprocessors are not microprocessors as you can view the chip!
Think About It!
feature-size is not going _that_ small.
Re: Opteron versus Xeon
AFAIK it's already been done with experimental logic gates, some the size of a few molecules, and some the size of a single atom.bob wrote:None of this matters as you can't make a gate with 2 atoms, so it's a moot point...Terry McCracken wrote:You didn't read what I wrote. I said a true nanoprocessor would use a 1 nanometer process, not 16.CRoberson wrote:It would not be a nanoprocessor. A 16 nanometer "process"
(not processor) doesn't mean the cpu is 16 nanometers in size.
Think about it; you can easily see the cpu in your computer without
a microscope.
Try and view the circuits without a microscope, you can't! We're not talking about the size of the die, or the overall size of the chip, but rather the size of a single logic gate.
By your reasoning microprocessors are not microprocessors as you can view the chip!
Think About It!
feature-size is not going _that_ small.
Do you think microchip technology is the end of computing? We haven't yet begun!
-
- Posts: 3707
- Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 7:10 pm
Re: Opteron versus Xeon
The biggest problem with die shrinking is voltage leakage. I think Intel has found a cure for that for the moment and 45nm seems good and maybe the next shrink after that. But voltage leakage might end up making any further die shrinks very difficult and thus another technological solution to the problem is needed.