Now we have super computer in our pockets, and people still complain about it's not fast enough.

The Professor professes very well!

But he should have explained the MOSFET instead of a PNP or NPN transistor, 'cos it's commonly used in CPUs

@@1MarkKeller 6

@@dejangavrilov6459 Classmate!

The Professor is a proficient professer!

Dr. Ian Cutress from Tech Tech Potato has a similar channel. There are people who can cover this subject but arent as big so you're not aware of them.

@@JayHere I follow him bro de doesn't do animation though

My main question here being - Even if you can control semiconductor like if it can conduct or not [9:40], it's done when current is passed through it or not. But a conductor by definition is something which conducts WHEN current is passed through it.. so isn't semiconductor just a conductor at all times except when it's not doing anything in which case, it shouldn't even matter if it's conductor or not

Gary explained everything tech....

I have some videos on how CPUs work plus a video about cache memory.

@@GaryExplains Cool! Just came across this video out of the blue and subbed after watching it. Will check it out when I get home. Thank you!

You clearly haven’t watched “silicon run“ then

Glad you enjoyed it!

lol, true!

My pleasure!

Thank you!

Thanks for watching!

@@GaryExplains ASML is working on a "high N.A. (0,55)" EUV system. The current EUV system will set you back €150 million. Former ASML engineer.

I am glad it was helpful.

Thank you! Cheers!

FinFet has been the standard for all chips, however to make chips smaller this will need to be replaced with GAA = Gate All around. This however has more to do with chip design, not so much with the ASML machine.

I think that maybe I covered that enough in videos like Arm vs x86, or Arm vs RISC-V. If you have watched those and you think there is still some gaps that I need to fill then please let me know.

Thanks.

Glad you liked it!

Glad you enjoyed it!

Because most of the processing is done inside machines, you won't see much. The few clips he did show is a good representation of the entire process overall; just wafers being loaded into hundreds of different machines. You should be able to look up all the different steps and get a detailed understanding of each process, but to do that in a single video would be hours long.

Yes, I know I used the wrong symbol. Sorry. You aren't the first person to point it out

Well, it will be quite a while before one shows up on eBay. A large number of the billions of chips that are made are on the mature (older) process nodes. These machines are always in high demand.

Nope we were way past UV lithography a decade ago. 10nm is the wavelength for near X-rays and we have chips these days in the lab working at 2nm.

MARK!!!

How dare you... I'll show you... LOL, only kidding 😂😜 If I analyze myself, which I know can be hard, I don't have a problem with people misunderstanding things. I wouldn't make these videos, if I did. I struggle with people who make it personal, and start calling me names or make personal remarks about me. Also with people who have a little bit of knowledge and think they know everything. When I then ask them to prove or explain or expound they tend to get belligerent. There seems to be universal imbalance with UKposts. It seems the rule is that viewers can write whatever they want and the video creator must just accept it, but if the creator replies then some how I am being rude. I don't think I am just rude for the sake of it, well I hope I am not, I think, as I said, there is an imbalance in attitude. No one ever said, go read the comments section on UKposts it is so nice there.

@@GaryExplains Right, that's it, I demand satisfaction! Pistols at dawn! Jokes aside, people who are trolling / just rude / arrogant in general deserve a bit of a dressing down and you've got every right to. That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to people who simply get something wrong, haven't understood and maybe ask a bit of a dumb question - but do it politely. I mean, I've yet to see a case where they were right and you weren't but jumping down their throat and saying words to the effect of "did you watch the video or not?!" Well, clearly they did and just didn't understand it... If you're discussing highly technical details about chipsets or whatever, it might seem obvious to you and me, but some lay people might struggle / misunderstand and ask a dumb question or say something that's plainly wrong. That sort of person isn't a troll, they haven't been rude or claimed to be an expert (yet, at least) it's an opportunity for them to learn. Jumping down the throat of someone like that because they made a mistake is a bit unedifying. That's a reservation I have but, on balance, I very much like the channel and appreciate what you do.

Hmmm. I understand what you are saying, but politely I disagree. Many times when I ask people if they watched the video, I would say 8/10, if the person replies they admit that they didn't and they were just commenting based on the title or the first couple of minutes. I don't recall any situations where I have replied unkindly to a genuine question from someone who actually watched the video but didn't get something. In my defense I remember lots of people who thanked me for interacting and helping them clear up any doubts or misunderstandings. Maybe you could point me to some examples, worse case it will help me to see the error of my ways.

@@GaryExplains Oh goodness Gary, I'll not going to go through comments looking for unpleasant exchanges. I appreciate you taking my comments on board and responding to me. That aside, this channel is an absolute credit to you. Your enthusiasm and expertise are simply brilliant and wish you every success.

Indeed there are lots of comments, that is also one reason why some of my replies can seem terse at times, as I am literally reading thousands of comments. But here is any example of someone who liked my replies: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/fplhdYGpp6iI2Zs.html&lc=UgwDNYfAQJnW3jJvKuh4AaABAg

Those dies are not finished yet. Later on they will be covered with a lot of copper and μBumps will be made if flip-chip technology will be used. You saw the wrong side of a die, but other side still has protected layer that you can remove with small grid sand paper.

Aren't they just diagrams or false-colour or something?

Actually never mind, I think voytechj is right

Happy to hear that!

Yeah, I know. Sorry about that. Several others have pointed that out. But if that is all there is to complain about in a 25 minute video on a complex subject then I am happy.

Indeed. Sorry about that. You are the third or fourth person to point it out. But if that is the only error that people are finding in a 25 minute video on a complex topic then I am happy! :-)

And it doesn't help that a lot of introductory material on transistors will describe BJTs (bipolar junction transistors). The FETs (field effect transistors) work mainly based on voltage (drawing almost no current on the gate - the middle bit - when not switching). Side note - That's one of the reasons you see power consumption scaling with operating frequency. Hence, CPU frequency scaling became a big thing about 15 years ago.

Yes and no. Every processor has its own mask and unique lithography, but to save costs companies like Intel or AMD will often use the same physical chip for several models and physically disable a feature while leaving it on the die. They also test all the chips and the ones that can't run at the highest clock speeds are sold as slower models in the range. For example the difference between the Intel Core i5-1130G7 and the Intel Core i5-1135G7 is that one runs as 4GHz (Max) and the other 4.2GHz (Max). Same chip.

@@GaryExplains it seems to me that it would be wasteful to intentionally make an i3, i5, and i7. It seems likely that Intel starts out trying to make only the fastest i7s and the natural manufacturing process creates the i5s and i3s. Thus there is no such thing as an i3, but instead it is a defective i7.

​@@mdrew44628 No, you are confusing "binning" where a 2.5GHz processor might really just be a failed 2.7GHz processor, but that is about the limit to it. Certainly not the case that an i3 is just a defective i7, no. Sorry.

@@GaryExplains well I was looking at it this way. If you used the same die size for the i3, i5, and i7 and they went through the same process, why would you purposely disable certain features like number of cores, RAM cashe size, etc. and then charge a lower price for a chip that cost the same to manufacture. If you look at the topology of the wafer, foreign material is going to pepper the surface during processing and will create bad i7s. Instead of discarding these bad i7s, if you had a good design, you could simply disable the bad parts of the chip and call it an i5 or i3. That way you end up with 90% total yield on each wafer instead of only 45%.

UKposts has 1000 videos on the topic.