TalkChess.com

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.

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.

So you would only need a magnifying glass to see a microprocessor.

Best
Dan H.

Dan Honeycutt wrote:

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.

So you would only need a magnifying glass to see a microprocessor.

Best
Dan H.

Not just a magnifying glass .... you need a microscope 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.

You didn't read what I wrote. I said a true nanoprocessor would use a 1 nanometer process, not 16.

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!

smirobth wrote:

Dan Honeycutt wrote:

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.

So you would only need a magnifying glass to see a microprocessor.

Best
Dan H.

Not just a magnifying glass .... you need a microscope to see a microprocessor.

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.

Best
Dan H.

Dan Honeycutt wrote:

smirobth wrote:

Dan Honeycutt wrote:

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.

So you would only need a magnifying glass to see a microprocessor.

Best
Dan H.

Not just a magnifying glass .... you need a microscope to see a microprocessor.

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.

Best
Dan H.

One Nanoscope in the making

Nano Nano Regards,
Robin Williams

Terry McCracken wrote: :lol: One Nanoscope in the making :wink:

Nano Nano Regards,
Robin Williams

I think nanoscope really would make a good generic name for the STM and all of its cousins.

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.

Terry McCracken wrote:

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.

You didn't read what I wrote. I said a true nanoprocessor would use a 1 nanometer process, not 16.

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!

None of this matters as you can't make a gate with 2 atoms, so it's a moot point...

feature-size is not going _that_ small.

bob wrote:

Terry McCracken wrote:

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.

You didn't read what I wrote. I said a true nanoprocessor would use a 1 nanometer process, not 16.

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!

None of this matters as you can't make a gate with 2 atoms, so it's a moot point...

feature-size is not going _that_ small.

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.

Do you think microchip technology is the end of computing? We haven't yet begun!

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.