Talk:45 nm process: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Can you please provide an article that supports this. I have heard of the upcoming 32 nm technology, but not about the 22 nm and 10 nm transistor standards. [[User:KBi|KBi]] 03:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC) |
Can you please provide an article that supports this. I have heard of the upcoming 32 nm technology, but not about the 22 nm and 10 nm transistor standards. [[User:KBi|KBi]] 03:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC) |
||
For 22nm i found this [http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20050815213200.html this] the 16nm (10?) seens to be speculation yet.--[[User:EduardoS|EduardoS]] 01:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== For more information, see Slashdot? == |
== For more information, see Slashdot? == |
||
Revision as of 01:40, 15 October 2006
"Although research is just beginning, the successors to 45nm technology will be 32 nm, 22 nm, then 10 nm technology."
Can you please provide an article that supports this. I have heard of the upcoming 32 nm technology, but not about the 22 nm and 10 nm transistor standards. KBi 03:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
For 22nm i found this this the 16nm (10?) seens to be speculation yet.--EduardoS 01:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
For more information, see Slashdot?
- From the article: "(For more information on this subject, see this Slashdot discussion: [1].)" This is a joke, right? 198.205.32.93 14:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Removed this; it is possible that these numbers are arbitrary, but it is also possible that they reflect fundamental physical limits of some sort. to here. Personal speculation is not part of an encycopedia, but if someone could concretely answer this question please..:)