News Rumours point to problems with Intel's 10nm node

Question if I may: From what I've read via my Google-fu quantum tunnelling starts to occur around 3nm, the accepted way of describing CPUs are 14nm, 10nm, etc, etc, that (afaik) is only the transistor size, or is it the gap?

Anyway even though a CPU is described as 10nm are there actually smaller components inside the CPU, smaller enough to experience quantum tunnelling?

 

Hmm, these 'Kaby Lake' have a 'Broadwell' like smell about them.

 

In reply to Corky42 - Yes there are smaller parts, 14nm is the transistor size. The tunneling is a particular issue for the oxide layers used to provide insulation on the gate of the transistor. One of the reasons silicon is good chips is it has a solid stable oxide however these layers are now so thin that electrons can tunnel across them and leak out of the chip, essentially resulting in it going from charged to uncharged or 0 - 1 over time. The silicon-dioxide is being replaced by alternative materials to help mitigate this but it becomes more and more of an issue and harder to fix as the chip gets smaller.

 

Fraudwell™

 

don't we hear the same thing with every node?

 

I just wish tsmc or glofo could figure out something sub-20nm, to move the rest of the semicon industry along.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Hmm, these 'Kaby Lake' have a 'Broadwell' like smell about them.
Fraudwell™

Zap!well anyone?

 

Id imagine Intel are fast approaching the point where Cost to make will outwiegh the benefits if we are not already at that point.

If it costs them several $bil to develop and sort 10nm they have to make back at least twice that for it to be worthwhile.

Skylake is a nice chip and has good stock improvements over Sandybridge but are they enough for people to spend the cash upgrading. Id personally just overclock it a bit and get similar bang for buck.