Semiconductor & Computer Engineering
From WikiChip
Difference between revisions of "User talk:At32Hz"
(moved discussion to its own section) |
(→14 nm) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
== 14 nm == | == 14 nm == | ||
"14nm lithography article" You reverted my edit about the sram density, while the Intel slide in the article clearly states that the sram density is higher than that of a logic tall cell. So do you claim the slide is wrong, or do i miss something obvious? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[WikiChip:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Nible|Nible]] ([[User talk:Nible|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nible|contribs]]) 09:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | "14nm lithography article" You reverted my edit about the sram density, while the Intel slide in the article clearly states that the sram density is higher than that of a logic tall cell. So do you claim the slide is wrong, or do i miss something obvious? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[WikiChip:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Nible|Nible]] ([[User talk:Nible|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nible|contribs]]) 09:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: Yea my mistake, I reverted it. I was going through new 14/7nm process info and mixed up some stuff. My bad. --[[User:At32Hz|At32Hz]] ([[User talk:At32Hz|talk]]) 18:01, 20 July 2017 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 17:01, 20 July 2017
Goldmont
?> Hello World! <?
Re "Goldmont" article. You stuffed all my edits under "latency", even though most of them are about throughput. Throughput != latency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.175.37.10 (talk • contribs)
- Yup my bad. It should've been throughput. I've changed it accordingly. --At32Hz (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2016 (EDT)
14 nm
"14nm lithography article" You reverted my edit about the sram density, while the Intel slide in the article clearly states that the sram density is higher than that of a logic tall cell. So do you claim the slide is wrong, or do i miss something obvious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nible (talk • contribs) 09:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Yea my mistake, I reverted it. I was going through new 14/7nm process info and mixed up some stuff. My bad. --At32Hz (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2017 (EDT)