Which is smaller 130nm or 90nm


Recommended Posts

DjmUK

Okay then, let's see if I can explain this really frustrating thing on my mind..!

1nm (nanometer) = 1 billionth of a meter

2nm (nanometer) = 2 billionths of a meter

So, 2nm would be smaller than 1nm right? (when you go smaller, the higher the number goes).

But, here's where it gets out of whack:

Old CPU's = 130nm

New CPU's = 90nm (smaller)

Then = 60nm (even smaller)

Then = 45nm (a lot more smaller)

So how come those numbers go down, this is really confusing me - can someone please explain this to moi?

Link to post
Share on other sites
ABC

Wel it's easy to know. Just say a nm is mm... Then wich is bigger, 6mm or 2mm?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ayukawa

I'm sorry to tell you that 2nm is only 0.5 billionths of a meter...

use a scientific calcualtor to verify this(use reciprocal function btw :) )

so there's nothing wrong with it...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Niels

in your bold text you're treating the Xnm as a fraction, it is simply a measurement like a CM, the higher is larger.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quboid

That's not quite correct - 2nm is 2 lots of 1 billionth of a meter, in the same way as 2m is 2 lots of 1 meter.

1nm (nanometer) = 1 billionth of a meter

2nm (nanometer) = 2x 1 billionth of a meter

Link to post
Share on other sites
DjmUK

I 'think' I follow. I never thought of it like mm instead of nm.

If I'm getting this right:

- 0.5nm is half the size of 1nm

- 0.5nm is a quarter the size of 2nm

- 130nm is bigger than 90nm

Thanks guys, I knew someone out there would know :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
DjmUK
That's not quite correct - 2nm is 2 lots of 1 billionth of a meter, in the same way as 2m is 2 lots of 1 meter.

1nm (nanometer) = 1 billionth of a meter

2nm (nanometer) = 2x 1 billionth of a meter

That's another way to look at it. I had to read it through 4 times to sink in (I'm kinda' slow - especially with numbers). But now I understand, so it's like saying "2x 1 meter = 2 meters"...I gotcha :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
YaZoR

i cant believe someone actually posted this, and answered their own question in the title.

lol, self ownage :laugh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
DjmUK
i cant believe someone actually posted this, and answered their own question in the title.

lol, self ownage :laugh:

What do you mean - 'I answered it in the title'..? I knew which was smaller, I just didn't know how & why it was smaller (me not all there at times) :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
kivine

we are not dealing with negatives here, therefore 90nm is smaller

Link to post
Share on other sites
DjmUK

Yeah, the negatives is where I must of got confused.

The higher the negative number - the smaller it gets.

The smaller the negative number - the larger it gets.

The higher the positive number - the larger it gets.

The smaller the positive number - the smaller it gets.

But I'm glad we've got it all sorted now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Niels

right, now we can get back to three dimensional calculus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40420_1437839287
Okay then, let's see if I can explain this really frustrating thing on my mind..!

1nm (nanometer) = 1 billionth of a meter

2nm (nanometer) = 2 billionths of a meter

So, 2nm would be smaller than 1nm right? (when you go smaller, the higher the number goes).

But, here's where it gets out of whack:

Old CPU's = 130nm

New CPU's = 90nm (smaller)

Then = 60nm (even smaller)

Then = 45nm (a lot more smaller)

So how come those numbers go down, this is really confusing me - can someone please explain this to moi?

Umm nope. :wacko:

If 1nm is 1 billionth of a meter, then 2nm is 2 billionths of a meter, therefore it's not smaller!! Its twice as big.

So.....

130nm = 0.000013cm

90nm = 0.000009cm

Link to post
Share on other sites
DjmUK
right, now we can get back to three dimensional calculus.

haha - yeah right, I have enough problems with basic maths...let alone 3D Calculus :p

Umm nope. 

If 1nm is 1 billionth of a meter, then 2nm is 2 billionths of a meter, therefore it's not smaller!! Its twice as big.

So.....

130nm = 0.000013cm

90nm = 0.000009cm:wacko::

I see what you mean, and the smaller it gets the more zeros will be put in after the decimal point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason S.
I 'think' I follow. I never thought of it like mm instead of nm.

If I'm getting this right:

- 0.5nm is half the size of 1nm

- 0.5nm is a quarter the size of 2nm

- 130nm is bigger than 90nm

Thanks guys, I knew someone out there would know :)

yeah, if the number goes smaller, the size is smaller.... hence 45nm smaller than 130nm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.