Talk:90 nm process

Highlights

(Still editing,gathering notes)

-September 9, 2004 - Samsung Electronics 90nm 512Mb DDR SDRAM on 300mm base wafers.

2003 -Samsung

--Jondel 03:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the info. on leakage deserves it's own page. Leakage is a topic in itself, and deserves a full explanation.the1physicist 05:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Earlier versions

From a vandalism:(What about larger sizes for the earlier CPUs?)

What has this size

When saying a microchip is made in the x nanometer process, what actually is x nanometers? One transistor? --Abdull 17:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In industry parlance, the process-node size is a statement of the transistor's "drawn length" (or was it gate-length?) Many parameters go into a manufacturing process, and channel-length is just 1 of them. The semiconductor industry as a whole loosely follows the ITRS roadmap. Suffice it to say "90nm" is another Meaningless Measure of Marketing, like shoe-size, because the actual drawn transistor-sizes vary from foundry to foundry, depending on target application (digital CMOS, mixed-signal, analog R/F, sensor, high-voltage, etc.) Chimborazo (volcano)

• sigh*.. No, the measure is of the smallest feature size. An entire gate is rarely the "smallest feature". It amazes me that there is an entire article about a certain IC feature size that doesn't even explain what the significance of the measure is. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-05-19 23:29Z

Article renaming

For consistency, this article should be moved to 90 nanometre. RedWolf 16:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Consistency with what? That isn't likely a relevant factor in Wikipedia:Naming conventions in any case.

However, it shouldn't be just an adjective. A better name would probably be 90 nm process (are there any other nouns used in conjunction with this? Even if so, they should probably only be redirects), avoiding the nanometer/nanometre issue entirely. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Update?

This article seems to be way out of date, as 65 nm has been used by Intel now for some time. Could someone knowledgeable update the article? Fawcett5 15:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I would, but I find it ridiculous to have an entire series of articles about minimum feature width in silicon CMOS processes, so I don't consider it worth the time and effort. All of these articles should be adequately covered in a few sentences in Semiconductor device fabrication. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-16 16:07Z

I agree. This article shouldn't require that much attention anymore.218.168.143.177 11:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont think there is a need to write articles about different processes.This is 90nm then we will need articles for 65nm 45nm 32nm and so on. It is better that all such articles be merged into a single article discussing the importance of process dimensions and its details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.194.171 (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)