Talk:22 nm process

Untitled

The 22 nm node is expected to be a significantly different technology from today's 65 nm and older technologies. Thus the path to 22 nm will be revolutionary evolutionary rather than evolutionary revolutionary.

This conclusion seem wrong to me. It makes much more sense, according to the preceding argumentation, if the two words were the other way around, as my correction suggests (original is striked-through text).

Untitled

Hynix mass produces 20nm NAND chips

Hynix's new 20nm NAND chips are scheduled to become available in September 2010

http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/8/9/hynix-mass-produces-20nm-nand-chips/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.9.237.88 (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What about the recently announced 28nm from IBM? 121.73.130.22 (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Applied Materials' new 22nm logic gates

How significant is AMAT's new logic gate technology? Is this evolutionary or revolutionary? TheLastWordSword (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Moore's Law Disturbed?

Since Moore's law is still relevant and 14 nanometer technology was introduced the following line should be removed.

"This is an indication that CMOS scaling in this area has reached a wall at this point, possibly disturbing Moore's law." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.200.70.2 (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)