Comment on Huawei Teardown Shows 5nm Laptop Chip Made in Taiwan, Not China
ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 10 months agoIt’s also worth noting that not only can China not make 5nm but America can’t either. It’s literally just Taiwan and SK that make sub-7nm chips.
When you say “they can’t” do you mean “they haven’t constructed a facility and hired people that can do this” or do you mean even if they did those things they would not be able to?
The reason I ask is I have been in several discussions on here where people have insisted it is the second.
There are barriers to suddenly having sub 7nm chip production. The EUV etching laser setup is hundreds of millions of dollars per machine and are made by one country - The Netherlands - who are aligned with American and NATO trade ideals.
The issue also isn’t getting one; maintenance and software are required for each machine and are also strictly guarded. It’s why places like China and NK don’t have advanced chips but have rocket programs. It’s thesenbig things that’s gatekeeping progress.
Taiwan literally bet it’s future as a country on advanced technology and it paid off, probably the only one that did. SK has chaebols to soak up the cost and Samsung did exactly that with the help of the government in the 80s to compete with Japanese DRAM. It worked so well Japan stopped making most chips and SK took over.
USSR, India, Germany, America, Japan, Bulgaria, Vietnam, etc. have tried to start advanced chips technology centers but it doesn’t succeed for one reason or another, typically due to the long time frame and high costs making it unsustainable.
Very interesting, thank you.
China didn’t do shit. Taiwan did.
Think you might need to reread the comment you’ve replied to, they don’t say anything about China doing anything, in fact they make it clear that China can’t do it.
Oops
Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 10 months ago
Intel fab does sub 7nm. Meteor Lake processors main die use Intel 4, and the gpu die uses TSMC 5nm.
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Intel’s lithography process branding is intentionally misleading:
This was done because Intel basically missed an entire generation, and AMD and Nvidia (via TSMC and Samsung) basically leapfrogged them. They’re playing catchup now, and this is marketing spin to make their stuff look better on paper by changing the numbers and removing the units so they’re not technically falsely advertising, just misleading.
Beyond the “Intel 3” node, the process names are Intel 20A and Intel 18A, which, despite the lack of hard information at the moment, I’m pretty suspicious are also misleading branding/marketing attempts, because the symbol for “angstrom” is Å, not A.
Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 10 months ago
Its misleading because intel nodes at a given nm is a denser process. Finfett tech nm on its own is already a misleading number. Intels 10nm for example is a denser node than TSMCs 7nm. All companies use a non traditional method of measuring nm (as if they did, how does it make sense that a intel 10nm product have higher density than something that is “7nm”) as chip transitior is traditionally defined by the dostamce between transistor to transistor. And denser = transistors are closer together.
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Yep. I understand that. It’s still intentionally misleading.
If Intel could match the processor density, they’d just call it what it is. They’re almost certainly going to catch up eventually, but this naming crap is 100% a marketing ploy. If you also consider the hilarious and asinine slide deck they put together somewhat recently (and then quickly took down after they were basically laughed out of the room by the tech community), it’s very clear they’re trying to keep up with the Joneses (AMD).
They have HUGE enterprise and consumer marketshare, so they’re clearly not going anywhere… but as someone who does actually understand the physics in play here (EECS), it’s embarrassing to see a company that was a market leader and pioneer for so many years sink to such frankly embarrassing tactics.
Trashboat@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 months ago
Sort of. The nanometer number is mostly just marketing, and Intels “4nm” is really somewhere between TSMCs 5nm and 7nm as far as density goes. They’re still a ways behind, which is part of the reason their chips are so inefficient comparatively
Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 10 months ago
You are ware that the nm value used for samsungs and tsmcs process is also marketing right?
ichbinjasokreativ@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I know it’s more complicated than just node size, but you’re making it sound like intel cpus are roughly the same transistor density as current AMD cpus, so why is amd that much more efficient?
stuner@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Do you have a source for that? According to WikiChip Fuse, Intel 4 is comparable to TSMC N3 in density and offers better performance: fuse.wikichip.org/news/6720/…/4/