• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

TSMC Claims Breakthrough on 1nm Chip Production

MxPhenom 216

ASIC Engineer
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
13,009 (2.49/day)
Location
Loveland, CO
System Name Ryzen Reflection
Processor AMD Ryzen 9 5900x
Motherboard Gigabyte X570S Aorus Master
Cooling 2x EK PE360 | TechN AM4 AMD Block Black | EK Quantum Vector Trinity GPU Nickel + Plexi
Memory Teamgroup T-Force Xtreem 2x16GB B-Die 3600 @ 14-14-14-28-42-288-2T 1.45v
Video Card(s) Zotac AMP HoloBlack RTX 3080Ti 12G | 950mV 1950Mhz
Storage WD SN850 500GB (OS) | Samsung 980 Pro 1TB (Games_1) | Samsung 970 Evo 1TB (Games_2)
Display(s) Asus XG27AQM 240Hz G-Sync Fast-IPS | Gigabyte M27Q-P 165Hz 1440P IPS | LG 24" IPS 1440p
Case Lian Li PC-011D XL | Custom cables by Cablemodz
Audio Device(s) FiiO K7 | Sennheiser HD650 + Beyerdynamic FOX Mic
Power Supply Seasonic Prime Ultra Platinum 850
Mouse Razer Viper v2 Pro
Keyboard Corsair K65 Plus 75% Wireless - USB Mode
Software Windows 11 Pro 64-Bit
There is a physical limit to how small a process can go before the constraints of the manufacturing equipment and atomic density prevents further reduction. 1nm is getting really close to that limit..

Sort of, we got to that point at 22nm when everyone was trying to figure out how to go smaller. FINFET became that solution and its gotten us to 5nm.

Now we are in the same position and so far the proven ways to get us under 5nm has been Nanosheet or Nanowire (Gate all-around) FETs. Its all about how to control the channel effectively and not allow electrons to leak from source to drain even if the FET is technically off. FINFET has a lot better control over channel behavior, but as the transistors get smaller we run into same problems exhibited by normal planar FETs when first trying to get below 22nm.

You are dead on about manufacturing though, going to FINFET was hell and a half for the industry due to tight tolerances to how FINFETs function. Nanosheet and wire solutions are even more difficult. Costs is going to be insane.

This new contact material is pretty interesting actually. Might add a bit to manufacturing costs though.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 4, 2005
Messages
12,013 (1.72/day)
System Name Compy 386
Processor 7800X3D
Motherboard Asus
Cooling Air for now.....
Memory 64 GB DDR5 6400Mhz
Video Card(s) 7900XTX 310 Merc
Storage Samsung 990 2TB, 2 SP 2TB SSDs, 24TB Enterprise drives
Display(s) 55" Samsung 4K HDR
Audio Device(s) ATI HDMI
Mouse Logitech MX518
Keyboard Razer
Software A lot.
Benchmark Scores Its fast. Enough.
While I agree that it's slightly dishonest, one can argue that it started to matter a whole lot less when the state of the art switched (hehe geddit) away from planar transistors.
Putting 'nm numbers' on things like FinFETs, GAA FETs and whatever else they're cooking up doesn't really make all that much sense anymore anyway, and as technologies continue to develop it's less and less about those nanometers.

If only there was something else both straightforward and catchy that can represent both performance and scaling of the most basic building blocks of transistors these days,..

Edit: It makes me think of those oldskool "3200+" names AMD put on their CPUs when clocks started to matter less compared to IPC. It's not really a straightforward metaphor but similar imho.

Its a number that translates into expected performance, so really anymo rethe node size is mattering less and less and actual performance matters more, look at the voltage frequency scaling of AMD 6000 GPU's VS Nvidias 3000 series, despite being "1nm" different. The fact that Apple is using the same node means more in the power/efficiency to performance metric than anything, they have more money than the US government and use TSMC for manufacturing.

So true and a comment probably lost on most posters....

Actually most here probably understand that the naming scheme is worthless now, lower process size used to mean more speed (Ghz) with lower voltage, but now we are reaching the bend of the knee where smaller doesn't mean faster or smaller die sizes. RAM and motherboard tech hasn't kept up with smaller process improvements and the ability to kill a CPU by damaging its on die termination is a thing.
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
671 (0.18/day)
System Name Work in progress
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Motherboard Asus PRIME B350M-A
Cooling Wraith Stealth Cooler, 4x140mm Noctua NF-A14 FLX 1200RPM Case Fans
Memory Corsair 16GB (2x8GB) CMK16GX4M2A2400C14R DDR4 2400MHz Vengeance LPX DIMM
Video Card(s) GTX 1050 2GB (for now) 3060 12GB on order
Storage Samsung 860 EVO 500GB, Lots of HDD storage
Display(s) 32 inch 4K LG, 55 & 48 inch LG OLED, 40 inch Panasonic LED LCD
Case Cooler Master Silencio S400
Audio Device(s) Sound: LG Monitor Built-in speakers (currently), Mike: Marantz MaZ
Power Supply Corsair CS550M 550W ATX Power Supply, 80+ Gold Certified, Semi-Modular Design
Mouse Logitech M280
Keyboard Logitech Wireless Solar Keyboard K750R (works best in summer)
VR HMD none
Software Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64bit OEM, Captur 1 21
Benchmark Scores Cinebench R20: 3508 (WIP)
Its a number that translates into expected performance, so really anymo rethe node size is mattering less and less and actual performance matters more, look at the voltage frequency scaling of AMD 6000 GPU's VS Nvidias 3000 series, despite being "1nm" different. The fact that Apple is using the same node means more in the power/efficiency to performance metric than anything, they have more money than the US government and use TSMC for manufacturing.



Actually most here probably understand that the naming scheme is worthless now, lower process size used to mean more speed (Ghz) with lower voltage, but now we are reaching the bend of the knee where smaller doesn't mean faster or smaller die sizes. RAM and motherboard tech hasn't kept up with smaller process improvements and the ability to kill a CPU by damaging its on die termination is a thing.
Spin projection quantum number and multiplicity v marketing spin?
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2015
Messages
545 (0.17/day)
Location
Here
System Name Skypas
Processor Intel Core i7-6700
Motherboard Asus H170 Pro Gaming
Cooling Cooler Master Hyper 212X Turbo
Memory Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1060 Gaming X 6GB
Storage Corsair Neutron GTX 120GB + WD Blue 1TB
Display(s) LG 22EA63V
Case Corsair Carbide 400Q
Power Supply Seasonic SS-460FL2 w/ Deepcool XFan 120
Mouse Logitech B100
Keyboard Corsair Vengeance K70
Software Windows 10 Pro (to be replaced by 2025)
This makes 10nm sounds outdated
 
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
2,540 (0.48/day)
Spin projection quantum number and multiplicity v marketing spin?
Spin is actually useful for making chips without electron excitements, i.e heat generation. They just have to lay a framework for microwave interconnects. Pretty science fiction stuff. Think of it as 2.5D MCM's eating up the market for 3D chips.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
6,760 (1.39/day)
Processor Intel® Core™ i7-13700K
Motherboard Gigabyte Z790 Aorus Elite AX
Cooling Noctua NH-D15
Memory 32GB(2x16) DDR5@6600MHz G-Skill Trident Z5
Video Card(s) ZOTAC GAMING GeForce RTX 3080 AMP Holo
Storage 2TB SK Platinum P41 SSD + 4TB SanDisk Ultra SSD + 500GB Samsung 840 EVO SSD
Display(s) Acer Predator X34 3440x1440@100Hz G-Sync
Case NZXT PHANTOM410-BK
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi Titanium PCIe
Power Supply Corsair 850W
Mouse Logitech Hero G502 SE
Software Windows 11 Pro - 64bit
Benchmark Scores 30FPS in NFS:Rivals
And there is Intel, with the 14+++++(+)nm chips and preparing for 10+ ...:roll::ohwell:
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2005
Messages
12,013 (1.72/day)
System Name Compy 386
Processor 7800X3D
Motherboard Asus
Cooling Air for now.....
Memory 64 GB DDR5 6400Mhz
Video Card(s) 7900XTX 310 Merc
Storage Samsung 990 2TB, 2 SP 2TB SSDs, 24TB Enterprise drives
Display(s) 55" Samsung 4K HDR
Audio Device(s) ATI HDMI
Mouse Logitech MX518
Keyboard Razer
Software A lot.
Benchmark Scores Its fast. Enough.
Spin projection quantum number and multiplicity v marketing spin?
Theoretical VS actual is always spin.

Quantum needs supercooling and until we find a material that will efficiently move heat it will remain in the realm of super computers for large companies and governments.

Honey, can you pick up a gallon of liquid nitrogen, there is a gaming match I need my VR quantum system and it’s going to need it.

I don’t imagine that will become the norm, so classical computing for the near future for us. 3D chips with pathways for phase change heat transfer fluid will be mainstream before quantum chips. Considering that the maximum and actual transistor density is already 2X different to achieve the switching speed required we may even see it happen before “1nm” is in full production. It’s the question of how much is wafer space and product availability worth to add it.
 
Joined
May 3, 2018
Messages
2,881 (1.19/day)
Hmm 1nm like so see how they will stop quantum tunnelling of electrons at that size. Now of course what feature sizes will actually be 1nm are unknown, but I doubt the current carrying interconnects will be that small.

I cannot see at all how they can go into the pico metre range after this, you will have structures that are only a few atoms wide. They actually cease to behave at all like a bulk material. A hydrogen atom is about 1.06Å in diameter and silcon is about 3Å but of course silicon is in a crystal structure and the bond lengths are larger.
 
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
41 (0.01/day)
With so many resources going into 1nm and beyond, has anyone tried to improve upon other components like motherboards, ram, and Ethernet or other peripheral capabilities so that we can leap ahead?
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
6,760 (1.39/day)
Processor Intel® Core™ i7-13700K
Motherboard Gigabyte Z790 Aorus Elite AX
Cooling Noctua NH-D15
Memory 32GB(2x16) DDR5@6600MHz G-Skill Trident Z5
Video Card(s) ZOTAC GAMING GeForce RTX 3080 AMP Holo
Storage 2TB SK Platinum P41 SSD + 4TB SanDisk Ultra SSD + 500GB Samsung 840 EVO SSD
Display(s) Acer Predator X34 3440x1440@100Hz G-Sync
Case NZXT PHANTOM410-BK
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi Titanium PCIe
Power Supply Corsair 850W
Mouse Logitech Hero G502 SE
Software Windows 11 Pro - 64bit
Benchmark Scores 30FPS in NFS:Rivals
With so many resources going into 1nm and beyond, has anyone tried to improve upon other components like motherboards, ram, and Ethernet or other peripheral capabilities so that we can leap ahead?
You don't like 8GHz DDR5 RAMs?? Or PCI-Express 4/5? Or USB 4.0?
 
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
2,540 (0.48/day)
Hmm 1nm like so see how they will stop quantum tunnelling of electrons at that size. Now of course what feature sizes will actually be 1nm are unknown, but I doubt the current carrying interconnects will be that small.

I cannot see at all how they can go into the pico metre range after this, you will have structures that are only a few atoms wide. They actually cease to behave at all like a bulk material. A hydrogen atom is about 1.06Å in diameter and silcon is about 3Å but of course silicon is in a crystal structure and the bond lengths are larger.
MBCFET utilizes these tunneling currents, it is a feature rather than a deficit. NANDs use them as well, the current isn't enough for physical transfer of electrons. Only the electrons passing nonphysically can make the jump. It is funny, but nevertheless it lowers the resistance.
 
Top