3 ms·
>"Heh, they are even going to 7nm." The problem with quoting process nodes from different fabs is that there isn't any standard for defining the minimum featur
by cc439 8y ago
>"Heh, they are even going to 7nm."
The problem with quoting process nodes from different fabs is that there isn't any standard for defining the minimum feature size. IIRC, the gap between the process node's nominal and the actual minimum feature size began diverging after the 45nm era and has devolved into being absolutely meaningless at this point. Personally, I believe the vertical integration afforded by owning your own fabs actually pans out even though Intel appears to be struggling at the moment. AMD divesting their fabs was one of the largest reasons why they were so uncompetitive up until recently and a large portion of their current renaissance lies in the fact that we have reached the end of the line in terms of consistent process shrinks. There's only a few nm left until we arrive at the physical barrier of individual atoms and the independent fabs have now had enough time to catcb up to the very frontier of process engineering.
- FabHK 8y agoAt JuliaCon 2018 in London, Sophie Wilson (Broadcom/ARM/Cambridge) gave an insightful overview about the "Future of Microprocessors", and she touched on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX4ZNfvw1cw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX4ZNfvw1cw