Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

No Point Moore's Law is Dead

So the copper atom is 0.128 nano meters wide and TSMC claims a 2 nano meter node in 2025, so that's about a 16 atom thick layer. I'm assuming you need more than a few layers of copper atoms to conduct electricity effectively (maybe 10 for good measure, therefore all these billions of dollars just to get the last few nodes of chips. After that, not even TSMC can create a new node because you can't get smaller than a few atoms. Intel just gave up on the last few nodes so there's no reason to compete since everyone will be at the last and final node in 5 to 10 years anyways.

by
| 1591 views | | 20 replies (last January 5, 2025) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1jgrz0tgm

20 replies (most recent on top)

Yes TD always thinks their sh-t doesn’t stink.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @fe+1jgrz0tgm

It's amazing that TD has somehow flown under the radar for their hand in developing absolutely terrible processes for YEARS. How did Ann stay in her position for so long despite her org being the main reason why we're here? TD engineers still think they're some lifeblood that keeps the company running, instead of being the source of the garbage that's ruined this company

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @f9+1jgrz0tgm

5 yard penalty for piling on

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @f4+1jgrz0tgm

C7 has horrendous body odor. It’s seething out of his words. He has a huge stain on his stinky tee shirt too. He’s the only one not noticing

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @f3+1jgrz0tgm

@e9, you stated that so eloquently lol, couldn’t agree more.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @f0+1jgrz0tgm

@c7+... and another arrogant a-s from TD raises their head. LTD holds a lot of the responsibility for Intel's downfall. STFU and go fix your lame process technology. You get paid a huge salary to deliver absolute cr-p... late.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @e9+1jgrz0tgm

Nano meter node is defined by the trench width of the etching process and the metal layer thickness to fill the trench, not the height of deposition and planarization.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @cs+1jgrz0tgm

I agree with the OP. Finally someone mentions the truth, even with successful scaling isn't the end of the road really close for every company? A shift to some other type of technology must happen to continue processor advancement. It's been happening already for quite awhile right? Single core speeds have stopped going up and multi-core has taken over for many years now.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ck+1jgrz0tgm

Wow, how do you manage to wipe your a-s with the amount of brains you have?
2nm node is just a name ... It means zilch. We have had horizontal and vertical structures in the transtor thst are controlled below 1nm even on our useless nodes from 4 yrs back.

I'm embarrassed to work with geniuses like you OP.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @c7+1jgrz0tgm

Going vertical doesn't make the nano meters go down.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bf+1jgrz0tgm

Two words. Heterogeneous integration ftw!!!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ba+1jgrz0tgm

Lets ask Gartner, i hear this is what we do now

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @aw+1jgrz0tgm

Transistors are not made out of copper.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @av+1jgrz0tgm

He is dead. No more law

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ap+1jgrz0tgm

nice intellectual point
it will get tougher and more costly to get better if we can
i'll go with @a7+1jgrz0tgm 's point
there is the vertical direction or a parallel architecture
the field is dying maybe that is why they are trying to ship it overseas
it will become a Burger King, no research just make everything very very cheaply

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @af+1jgrz0tgm

In BK’s era we asserted 14nm would be the final node

Since Samsung and TSMC were able to show otherwise we wound up in our current mess

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a8+1jgrz0tgm

We’re approaching it, but there can also be scaling in the “vertical” direction.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a7+1jgrz0tgm

If what you say become real, can Intel continue to survive by stopping its development early?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a6+1jgrz0tgm

Ok prodco engineer.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a5+1jgrz0tgm

Post a reply

: