> 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.
show comments
jadar
Just to be clear, this doesn't mean that anything on the die actually measures 0.7nm — it means that it's roughly double the density as the previous node generation. At some point the industry decided to keep talking about "nanometers" even though the actual transistor sizes have been decoupled from the node name for years.
I am just astonished at the quality of the structure. Not only that, but the quality of the "cut" to then be able to take this picture. I was closely involved in EM imaging more than 30 years ago, this is just wonderful to see such pictures now.
IanCutress
For what it's worth, here's my 7000+ word deep dive into the technology.
The most surprising part for me is that IBM still somehow owns silicon labs, I was sure it's effectively a consulting company by now
show comments
throw0101d
One of the images has "15 rows of Si atoms".
Is there a limit to how small things can go? A single atom?
Is there a physical/molecular limit to Moore's Law?
show comments
giwook
How does IBM commercialize this? Do they license this out to fabs?
show comments
masswerk
How do these 3D architectures scale regarding yield? (The naïve expectation would be that adding vertical layers should have exponential impact on yield.) Is this commercially viable, near term?
victor106
Keep hearing that IBM makes these incredible chips but don’t see anyone using IBM chips. What do they do with them?
show comments
monirmamoun
Two big problems 1) NOBODY knows what IBM's definition of "sub 1nm" means 2) IBM bullshits so much more than anyone including Intel (remember the "teleportation" ads years ago) that nobody is going to waste time researching what they mean in reality
show comments
petcat
> 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.
show comments
Alien1Being
More marketing lies from IBM.
Sad to see the decline and corruption of a once OK company.
Selling a 5 nm vertically stacked chip as equivalent to 0.7 nm
Shades of Watson and other IBM lies.
elisbce
Why doesn't the industry use something like transistor density per cubic cm? This would extend to 3d cases and impossible to fake
show comments
spzeno
Is the 3D transistor proposed by IBM on the same track as Tao's Law proposed by Huawei?
markhahn
has anyone found a paper with details?
also, I was expecting to see cfets mentioned.
kosolam
They dont give the exact size hmm
cubefox
Relevant quote:
> IBM sees a path to production in as early as the next 5 years.
5 years is a long time for a product roadmap, so there are probably some significant unsolved problems remaining, and the timeline depends on whether IBM can solve these problems.
applfanboysbgon
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.
show comments
sidcool
How come we don't hear anything about Watson?
show comments
georgeburdell
IBM debuts a PDK and some test structures, as they have no production fabs
show comments
bozhark
Sub-Atomic level chips soon, then?
show comments
perching_aix
I wonder at what point does it become deceptive in the legally biting way to market process nodes like this. One can wax and wane a bunch about industry terminology status quo, but this is mental.
show comments
stackedinserter
Since a transistor can't be smaller than a single atom, maybe it's time to start optimizing our software again.
ginko
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?
show comments
greenavocado
Not bad, now you just have to fold it 86 times to reach one Planck length. The only issue you'd run into is it would have to be 77 quadrillion kilometers thick
mxuribe
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!
> 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.
Just to be clear, this doesn't mean that anything on the die actually measures 0.7nm — it means that it's roughly double the density as the previous node generation. At some point the industry decided to keep talking about "nanometers" even though the actual transistor sizes have been decoupled from the node name for years.
Looking at this picture: https://filecache.mediaroom.com/mr5mr_ibmnewsroom/201436/IBM...
I am just astonished at the quality of the structure. Not only that, but the quality of the "cut" to then be able to take this picture. I was closely involved in EM imaging more than 30 years ago, this is just wonderful to see such pictures now.
For what it's worth, here's my 7000+ word deep dive into the technology.
https://morethanmoore.substack.com/p/ibms-announces-07nm-pro...
Remember that IBM paid Global Foundries $1.5 billion to take their fabs and design services group.
GF did not pay IBM. IBM paid GF to take the fabs away.
https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/ibm-to-pay-global...
The most surprising part for me is that IBM still somehow owns silicon labs, I was sure it's effectively a consulting company by now
One of the images has "15 rows of Si atoms".
Is there a limit to how small things can go? A single atom?
Is there a physical/molecular limit to Moore's Law?
How does IBM commercialize this? Do they license this out to fabs?
How do these 3D architectures scale regarding yield? (The naïve expectation would be that adding vertical layers should have exponential impact on yield.) Is this commercially viable, near term?
Keep hearing that IBM makes these incredible chips but don’t see anyone using IBM chips. What do they do with them?
Two big problems 1) NOBODY knows what IBM's definition of "sub 1nm" means 2) IBM bullshits so much more than anyone including Intel (remember the "teleportation" ads years ago) that nobody is going to waste time researching what they mean in reality
> 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.
More marketing lies from IBM. Sad to see the decline and corruption of a once OK company.
Selling a 5 nm vertically stacked chip as equivalent to 0.7 nm
Shades of Watson and other IBM lies.
Why doesn't the industry use something like transistor density per cubic cm? This would extend to 3d cases and impossible to fake
Is the 3D transistor proposed by IBM on the same track as Tao's Law proposed by Huawei?
has anyone found a paper with details?
also, I was expecting to see cfets mentioned.
They dont give the exact size hmm
Relevant quote:
> IBM sees a path to production in as early as the next 5 years.
5 years is a long time for a product roadmap, so there are probably some significant unsolved problems remaining, and the timeline depends on whether IBM can solve these problems.
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.
How come we don't hear anything about Watson?
IBM debuts a PDK and some test structures, as they have no production fabs
Sub-Atomic level chips soon, then?
I wonder at what point does it become deceptive in the legally biting way to market process nodes like this. One can wax and wane a bunch about industry terminology status quo, but this is mental.
Since a transistor can't be smaller than a single atom, maybe it's time to start optimizing our software again.
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?
Not bad, now you just have to fold it 86 times to reach one Planck length. The only issue you'd run into is it would have to be 77 quadrillion kilometers thick
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!