IBM debuts sub-1 nanometer chip technology
75 points - today at 3:33 PM
Source> logic technology can extend for the first time below the 1 nm node, advancing the era of angstrom-level scaling, where dimensions approach the size of individual atoms. While transistor nodes now refer to a generation of manufacturing technology versus an exact physical dimension, IBM’s 0.7 nm technology—also referred to as 7 angstroms—demonstrates how continued scaling remains possible.
Continuing the well established trend of making bold claims about physical dimensions that have nothing to do with any of the structures in the chip, and the name scales better than the tech.
What they actually deliver is a "nanostack architecture" built with ~5nm features that according to them is comparable to a hypothetical real sub-1nm chip.
It's an impressive achievement nonetheless but it looks like the industry has a few too many marketers.
pseudosavant
today at 5:51 PM
My read on it was that they are trying to imply a transistor density (in a 2D plane sense) that is comparable to a 1nm process? But they achieve that through stacking (3D, not 2D) since the features aren't actually anywhere near 1nm?
makeitdouble
today at 6:02 PM
If they're adding a dimension, the marketing should reflect that.
I know they won't go for an anything that makes as much sense as 5nm3, so I vote for "1nm hyper space"
roflmaostc
today at 5:55 PM
yeah, where on the pictures is the 0.7nm feature?
The linespacing is around 5nm. Is it the white line which is 0.7nm?
TallGuyShort
today at 6:04 PM
I really can't see where the 0.7nm is coming from. The white line looks like it's just an edge of a feature that is "15 rows of silicon atoms", which by some quick arithmetic on Wolfram Alpha has to be AT LEAST ~1.6nm, and the way the rows of atoms appear to be packed in that image and by the provided scale, it seems to be significantly more. Using the white line as a meaningful measurement seems to me to be more misleading than any other interpretation here.
cyanydeez
today at 5:32 PM
On the otherhand, no investor really cares what it's called, they just need to know it's next gen.
> IBM and its partners conduct this work at a leading semiconductor research facility in Albany, New York, which will soon be home to a High Numerical Aperture Extreme Ultraviolet (High NA EUV) lithography tool, essential for the future of logic scaling. Developed by ASML, this technology enables ultra‑precise circuit printing, supporting the creation of smaller, more powerful chips.
I'm guessing that this is the technology that is developed by Cymer (ASML subsidiary) in California, correct? Is there competing technology? I know xLight is trying to make some inroads on their own version of this EUV tech. I have not heard about any progress though.
porridgeraisin
today at 5:54 PM
Correct
How does IBM commercialize this? Do they license this out to fabs?
I’m sure they will license it. It’s better for them if everyone in the industry can innovate on everything around it. All the process tech companies will make it more cost effective, for instance, which helps IBM as well.
They licensed 2 nm to Rapidus so yes.
WaxProlix
today at 5:10 PM
Sit on a patent and try to scrape earnings from others, maybe? That is, license or litigate.
evanjrowley
today at 5:27 PM
boost sales for their systems division, POWER CPUs, mainframes, maybe Quantum stuff
TallGuyShort
today at 5:55 PM
I always feel like I'm not quite getting quantum stuff no matter how much I read and learn: what does this advancement have to do with quantum computers?
IBM regularly announces silicon breakthroughs like this but I'm not aware of those ever becoming products. Is IBM mainly in the business of licensing their technology to big silicon manufacturers with stuff like this? Is it just marketing for their consulting business?
My understanding is they are largely an IP business. That said this release mentioned an ASML machine on prem, so?
IBM's contributions to computing hardware and software are incalculable.
So many breakthroughs in hard drives, chips, transistor density, and other aspects of computing have come out of their labs.
Great to see them continuing to innovate.
But, yeah, usually they partner and license. Over the years, they've spun off more and more of their hardware businesses.
AnimalMuppet
today at 5:24 PM
I believe that IBM makes the chips for their Z Series mainframes. I mean, that's low volume production, but they need small feature size.
IBM Z series mainframe Telum CPUs are designed by IBM but manufactured by Samsung. IBM no longer owns any fabs. I assume they have some kind of technology licensing deal.
https://www.ibm.com/products/z/telum
> IBM no longer owns any fabs
Per IBM: "IBM Research at Albany [...] includes more than 100,000 square feet of semiconductor fabrication space"
I guess that is technically a R&D fab not a production one, but they definitely have in house fabrication capability
applfanboysbgon
today at 5:31 PM
For anyone who needs it, a friendly reminder that CPU nm marketing is a complete fabrication and the physical size of transistors has zero relation to the marketing claims. These are not, in fact, physically sub 1 nm, despite the bombastic claims.
>These are not, in fact, physically sub 1 nm, despite the bombastic claims.
Why? What's their real size?
Not doubting you, just trying to understand and also trying to assess how exaggerated the marketing is.
The marketing nm better represent the density and performance of the transistors than the actual feature size, especially in this case.
So the title should be corrected. The did not debut sub nm chips at all.
A little bit of a nitpick, but wouldn't that be a picometer instead of angstrom node? Like, isn't a "pico-" the next magnitude smaller than "nano-", or am i wrong?
Otherwise, that chip tech sounds really awesome - at least for the future!
Romario77
today at 6:04 PM
Because 1 angstrom equals 10⁻¹⁰ meters and 1 picometer equals 10⁻¹² meters, the relationship is:
1 Å = 100 pm.
1 pm = 0.01 Å.
There are 3 orders of magnitude between nano (^-9) and pico (^-12). An Angstrom is ^-10m.
Useless fact I just learned from Wikipedia: Ångström/Angstrom (in Sweden of course we still use the original spelling) has its own UNICODE symbol, Angstrom sign: Å (U+212B) not to confuse with the Swedish letter Å (U+00C5). Looks slightly different in my browser.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angstrom
Aaahhh, ok, thanks!
applfanboysbgon
today at 5:51 PM
You had the right idea. Angstroms are not an SI unit. The SI units jump by three orders of magnitude at this scale: picometer, nanometer, micrometer, millimeter.
(In the same way that meter jumps three orders of magnitude to kilometer[1], or millions to billions to trillions, etc.)
[1] Technically there are intermediate SI units between meter and km but nobody typically uses them. There are not intermediate SI units between the tiny ones.
SoftTalker
today at 6:03 PM
Why above 1mm do we go by tens instead of thousands?
We have centimeter (10 mm) then decimeter (100mm) then meter (1000mm). Then we jump to thousand again (kilometer).
TallGuyShort
today at 5:56 PM
1 picometer = 0.001 nanometers, 0.01 angstrom
1 angstrom = 0.1 nanometers, 100 picometers
1 nanometer = 10 angstroms, 1000 picometers