This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Semiconductor manufacturing processes template. |
|
While this tempate is intended primarily for the Semiconductor articles, it is also used in three of the "powers of 10" articles as an easy way to compare semiconductor dimensions to other objects. |
Electronics Template‑class | |||||||
|
This template is not intended as a location for content. It is a navigational aide that lets a reader go to the article that describes the listed process. The template is intended to be right-aligned and vertically oriented in articles that include it, so we want it to be narrow. Please do not add extra information to the entries that will make the template wider. Instead, add such information to the articles. If you wish to add an entry, create the article first, even if it is a stub. If you disagree with this approach, please discuss your concerns here. - Arch dude ( talk) 23:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The dates in this template should match the main date given in the associate article. We need to do this because putting references in the template is unreasonable, but any assertion of fact needs to be references somewhere. If you feel that this in incorrect, please discuss it here. - Arch dude ( talk) 15:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
In [1] I tried to show the half-shrinks, but these were later removed, because "the template becomes too wide". Should we show them somehow differently, or the current half-node link at the bottom is sufficient?
In any case doubling the number of list lines doesn't seem a good solution, especially since the half-shrinks are closely associated with the respective node (e.g. 65nm/55nm, etc.), that's why I made it by slightly longer lines instead. Ianteraf ( talk) 06:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
An editor made a good-faith attempt to convert this to a {{ sidebar}}. the result was about twice as wide and affected the appearance of several of the pages using this template. I made several attempts to fix this by adding parameters from the sidebar and navbox documentation, but failed. I would be happy to work with that editor or others to convert to using sidebar if we can get past the width problem.
There are two additional problems, but those are easily fixed:
Thanks. - Arch dude ( talk) 00:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I added the navbar back minus the edit link (using |noedit=1
. Feel free to revert if it still causes problems.
50.53.15.51 (
talk) 19:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
From what I've read, in 2016 TSMC will only do risk production - that doesn't count, right? As I understand it, risk production means that they are tweaking the production process. Regular production will supposedly start early 2017, and Intel even later in 2nd half of 2017. Source (German): http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/TSMC-will-Intel-bei-10-nm-ueberholen-2757231.html -- 91.45.159.136 ( talk) 16:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm loth to edit this template myself but Summary technology trend targets gives predictions for 4 more nodes. - Should we now start 3.5 nanometer etc ? - Rod57 ( talk) 20:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
The 10nm article says: "as of 2016, 10 nm devices are still under commercial development. Commercial release is expected to commence in 2017 by Intel.[1]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.147.196 ( talk) 07:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Now these are not official by any means, but are talked about in the industry and are widely discussed and debated on the Internet. Transistor Options Beyond 3nm. I think a ten year foresight towards 1nm is appropriate. Beatitudinem ( talk) 06:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
From IRDS, successor of ITRS. 2017 Summary provides predictions for 4 more node range labels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.0.49.55 ( talk) 16:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
(as per comment above) Article 3 nanometer exists. usage "3nm" in common use by manufactures/journalists. ITRS also uses term - eg see :
or
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Semiconductor manufacturing processes template. |
|
While this tempate is intended primarily for the Semiconductor articles, it is also used in three of the "powers of 10" articles as an easy way to compare semiconductor dimensions to other objects. |
Electronics Template‑class | |||||||
|
This template is not intended as a location for content. It is a navigational aide that lets a reader go to the article that describes the listed process. The template is intended to be right-aligned and vertically oriented in articles that include it, so we want it to be narrow. Please do not add extra information to the entries that will make the template wider. Instead, add such information to the articles. If you wish to add an entry, create the article first, even if it is a stub. If you disagree with this approach, please discuss your concerns here. - Arch dude ( talk) 23:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The dates in this template should match the main date given in the associate article. We need to do this because putting references in the template is unreasonable, but any assertion of fact needs to be references somewhere. If you feel that this in incorrect, please discuss it here. - Arch dude ( talk) 15:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
In [1] I tried to show the half-shrinks, but these were later removed, because "the template becomes too wide". Should we show them somehow differently, or the current half-node link at the bottom is sufficient?
In any case doubling the number of list lines doesn't seem a good solution, especially since the half-shrinks are closely associated with the respective node (e.g. 65nm/55nm, etc.), that's why I made it by slightly longer lines instead. Ianteraf ( talk) 06:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
An editor made a good-faith attempt to convert this to a {{ sidebar}}. the result was about twice as wide and affected the appearance of several of the pages using this template. I made several attempts to fix this by adding parameters from the sidebar and navbox documentation, but failed. I would be happy to work with that editor or others to convert to using sidebar if we can get past the width problem.
There are two additional problems, but those are easily fixed:
Thanks. - Arch dude ( talk) 00:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I added the navbar back minus the edit link (using |noedit=1
. Feel free to revert if it still causes problems.
50.53.15.51 (
talk) 19:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
From what I've read, in 2016 TSMC will only do risk production - that doesn't count, right? As I understand it, risk production means that they are tweaking the production process. Regular production will supposedly start early 2017, and Intel even later in 2nd half of 2017. Source (German): http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/TSMC-will-Intel-bei-10-nm-ueberholen-2757231.html -- 91.45.159.136 ( talk) 16:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm loth to edit this template myself but Summary technology trend targets gives predictions for 4 more nodes. - Should we now start 3.5 nanometer etc ? - Rod57 ( talk) 20:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
The 10nm article says: "as of 2016, 10 nm devices are still under commercial development. Commercial release is expected to commence in 2017 by Intel.[1]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.147.196 ( talk) 07:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Now these are not official by any means, but are talked about in the industry and are widely discussed and debated on the Internet. Transistor Options Beyond 3nm. I think a ten year foresight towards 1nm is appropriate. Beatitudinem ( talk) 06:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
From IRDS, successor of ITRS. 2017 Summary provides predictions for 4 more node range labels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.0.49.55 ( talk) 16:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
(as per comment above) Article 3 nanometer exists. usage "3nm" in common use by manufactures/journalists. ITRS also uses term - eg see :
or