About 14, 10 and 7 nanometer computer chips.

[Geek-9pm]

Can you tell me?
Trying to keep up on the semiconductor technology gives me a hard time.
Once upon a time 14 nm was the best thing evermore to come to technology.

Then it was the 10 nm. And then 7.
http://semiengineering.com/10nm-versus-7nm/

This month Intel says they will spend $7 billion to build a 7 nano meter chip.
What?
More money to make something smaller? 
How can that be?
Will I need a microscope to build a custom  PC?

Anybody here ever work in a semiconductor fab?
Are there any experts here to explain why we need 7 nano meter
What went wrong with  the 10 or 14?

Why so small? 
Anybody? 

[patio]

Stop reading Tech ragazines...

[DaveLembke]

This month Intel says they will spend $7 billion to build a 7 nano meter chip.
What?
More money to make something smaller? 
How can that be?
Will I need a microscope to build a custom  PC?

Anybody here ever work in a semiconductor fab?
Are there any experts here to explain why we need 7 nano meter
What went wrong with  the 10 or 14?

Why so small? 
Anybody? 

7nm chips are more efficient and faster because the time it takes for signals to get from point A to B is a shorter distance. Improves battery life in say the tablet that will run the smaller cored chip. There is nothing wrong with any larger design. Its just that the larger scale design generally consumes more electricity, creates more heat, and signals take a little longer to get from point A to B.

My fastest computers are 32nm ( Core i3 2.1Ghz Laptop and a FX8350 4Ghz  Desktop ). Nothing wrong with them.

My smartphone has a 28nm Qualcomm Snapdragon 400 1.2Ghz.

Needing a microscope to build a PC made me laugh. Going smaller would allow them to fit more cores in the same area of a current chip socket type. So going from say 14nm to 7nm means that they could on a current 4 core of 14nm fit 8 cores of the 7nm on the same wafer.

[BC_Programmer]

Are there any experts here to explain why we need 7 nano meter
What went wrong with  the 10 or 14?

Same reason for all the reductions in process. the 8086 was a 3.2 μm process- all the reasons why they didn't continue to use that process and worked to reduce it apply today.

[Geek-9pm]

I did really try to read some of the stuff the super-smart tech people say about this. They say, in effect, it is impossible for optical lithography to make lines that small. But they do it anyway by spending more money.