this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2025
14 points (100.0% liked)

Hardware

2480 readers
24 users here now

All things related to technology hardware, with a focus on computing hardware.


Rules (Click to Expand):

  1. Follow the Lemmy.world Rules - https://mastodon.world/about

  2. Be kind. No bullying, harassment, racism, sexism etc. against other users.

  3. No Spam, illegal content, or NSFW content.

  4. Please stay on topic, adjacent topics (e.g. software) are fine if they are strongly relevant to technology hardware. Another example would be business news for hardware-focused companies.

  5. Please try and post original sources when possible (as opposed to summaries).

  6. If posting an archived version of the article, please include a URL link to the original article in the body of the post.


Some other hardware communities across Lemmy:

Icon by "icon lauk" under CC BY 3.0

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No, 100nm is good enough for that.

[–] Cort@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Ehh, the 100nm process is over 20 years old at this point, like older than the core2duo processors. Even ignoring power efficiency, the physical size of the chip and the amount of silicon it takes would be concerning.

Since die area is squared, you can make 100 times more processors using a 10nm fab with the same amount of silicon instead of the 100nm process

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I mean, microcontrollers, stand now, are commonly done in 100 or 80 nm.

Smaller is more expensive and less robust too.