Talk:65 nm process

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Electronics Low‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as High-importance).

Pentium 4

Can somebody PLEASE tell me what the Pentium 4 has to do with 65nm or leakage? It simply does not belong in this article.the1physicist 02:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Next Milestone?

This article appears to contradict the 45 nanometer article. They both say they are the "next milestone" in semiconductor manufacturing... --Wulf 21:55, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

actually, the articles are virtually identical. this needs to be fixed!

Timeline

When will the process be in wide-enough use that companies will adopt it for 'consumer electronics' such as the PSP or the ipod? It's unclear whether this process is just starting to roll out, or whether it's geared up for consumer viability as a new standard.

In fact, can this be completely jumped over in favor of the 45nm process, which already has leakage solved?

This is already rolled out, and 45 nm is next. The 45 nm process can be started very soon, if it is similar to the 65 nm process, in particular a low-leakage version of 65 nm. If it is very different, then it will require more time to debug.218.168.143.177 11:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone cite the IEDM references? thanks218.168.143.177 11:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Soon" be phased out?

I don't think the 65 nm process is going to be phased out "soon": Intel is announcing that 90% of its chips are going to be made with 65 nm processes by this summer, and AMD is just starting to ramp up production of 65 nm chips. Although 45 nm chips are likely going to be released by late 2007/early 2008, 65 nm chips are likely to still be produced for some time (consider that AMD is still making largely 90 nm products). I removed the "soon" element, took out some of the references as they were unclear, and generally cleaned up the page. Sloverlord 15:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

We need to add dates, and we need to remove "relative time" references and replace them with "absolute time" references. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and the articles should still be relevant ten years from now, when 65 nm will seem quaint and archaic.I have added dates fro first use of the process for several processors. I will continue this. Please help.

Thanks. -Arch dude 04:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox

There is a lot of buzz around the internet about new Xbox 360 models containing 65 nm CPUs instead of the earlier 90 nm. This is assumed to improve the reliability of the console. I wonder if that should at all be mentioned in the article.--SkiDragon 07:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it seems to be being mentioned twice, both as the "falcon" cpu and by it's Xenon codename. 204.83.242.221 00:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Area of transistor

The article claims the width of the 65nm-long transistor is about 25nm. Does that mean the average surface area occupied by a single transistor is (65 x 25) 1,625 sq.nm? Anwar (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propagation delay

The article does not tell the changes in propagation delay (in ns) of a state signal/pulse between transistors. Anwar (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 65 nanometer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927025913/http://www.itrs.net/Links/2006Update/FinalToPost/04_PIDS2006Update.pdf to http://www.itrs.net/Links/2006Update/FinalToPost/04_PIDS2006Update.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]