3 ms·
And I bet they just mean TSMC's 7nm node there, but that's very misleading. By the time Intel has its 7nm node ready, TSMC will be ahead with its 5nm node.
by mtgx 9y ago
And I bet they just mean TSMC's 7nm node there, but that's very misleading. By the time Intel has its 7nm node ready, TSMC will be ahead with its 5nm node.
- matthewmacleod 9y agoThat’s possible, but intel’s 7nm is likely to be better than TSMC’s 5nm regardless
- mtgx 9y agoConsidering the troubles they have with 10nm and the fact that everyone else will have more expertise with EUV lithography than them (Intel hasn't even planned to use EUV until 5nm), that seems quite doubtful at this point.
- tambre 9y agoPer the article: > The company will switch to EUV at 7nm.
- hinkley 9y agoCan Intel work apace on their 7nm node when the previous one is behind schedule by two years, or does this derail those plans?
- eco 9y agoI'm no expert on this but I do know that their 7nm will switch to their long in-development EUV lithography process. I'd assume the work on 10nm is completely separate from their work on 7nm (there are even rumors that they'll just abandon 10nm if 7nm is ready before they work out the problems with 10nm).
- akvadrako 9y agoThey are effectively just code names. Intel's 10nm ~ TSMC's 7nm
- mtgx 9y agoI understand, and that's how they should be comparing them. I was saying Intel likely compared its 7nm with TSMC's 7nm, where of course Intel would "win". But by the time it "wins" that, they won't compete with TSMC's 7nm in the market anymore, but with its 5nm.
- akvadrako 9y agoIt's just a strange way to look at it. Intel's naming convention is more honest and closer to traditional measurements and of course each marketing dept. will choose to say they are the best in the world across all processes, regardless of whatever the competition calls their feature size.