I'm blowing the EIQ trumpet, but check out http://www.electroiq.com/index/Semiconductors/sst-blogs/chipworks-blog-display/blogs/sst-blogs/chipworks/post987_3596488420747370540.html for plan-view images and more discussion.
Why Samsung did not follow the existing naming guidelines? They are trying to create confusion by coming up with their own naming convention. I guess all the chip manufacturers should also append to letters to their naming convention
1) AA - Above world wide average
2) BA - Below world wide average.
This will give clear picture if the shrink is real or just hypothetical.
Interestingly, this can also be considered equivalent to a 4F^2 cell with F=46 nm. I wonder if they could not directly pattern at the 38 nm 6F^2 design rule. Still, they could have done something like 42 nm and still get cost advantage.
As we unveil EE Times’ 2015 Silicon 60 list, journalist & Silicon 60 researcher Peter Clarke hosts a conversation on startups in the electronics industry. Panelists Dan Armbrust (investment firm Silicon Catalyst), Andrew Kau (venture capital firm Walden International), and Stan Boland (successful serial entrepreneur, former CEO of Neul, Icera) join in the live debate.