HackerTube.runGood videos, with context.
14nm and 7nm are NOT what you think it is - Visiting Tescan Part 3/3
About this video
Der8auer visits Tescan and uses an electron microscope to compare real transistor sizes on Intel 14nm and AMD 7nm chips. It shows that process node names do not match physical measurements.
Why it appears in the archive
HN cites it as visual evidence that nm node names are marketing labels and for its neat electron microscope comparison.
AI-generated summary and labels from the source dataset; verify important details against the video. Source & credits.
From the Hacker News discussion
Like others have said, the numbers aren't comparable between manufacturers. Here's a neat video where they use an electron microscope to actually compare the transistor sizes for Intel 14nm and AMD 7nm: [VIDEO]
Read original comment ↗According to this video using an electron scanning microscope on amd and Intel chips, the “7nm” or “10nm” number does not measure anything, and is effectively a process version number for marketing. From memory there is no single number for measuring transistors or efficiency, transistor density is useful, but it doesn’t tell you the performance or power usage. [VIDEO]
Read original comment ↗der8auer "14nm and 7nm are NOT what you think it is - Visiting Tescan" [VIDEO] for reference "TESCAN is a leading global producer and supplier of scanning electron microscopes, focused ion beam scanning electron microscopes and micro-CT solutions."
Read original comment ↗This reminds me of seeing a part of the chip from a scanning electron microscope: [VIDEO] But I wonder how successful these methods are are extracting keys from a TPM or other hardware keys.
Read original comment ↗