# 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?

##### Share on other sites
ABC

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

##### 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...

##### 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.

##### 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

##### 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 :)

##### 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 :)

##### Share on other sites
YaZoR

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

lol, self ownage :laugh:

##### 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:

##### Share on other sites
kivine

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

##### 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.

##### Share on other sites
Niels

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

##### 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

##### 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.

##### 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.