3 ms·

The gist of what's being said on this post and the thread on Apple's video is that everyone is generally around the same size for various features. So we might

The gist of what's being said on this post and the thread on Apple's video is that everyone is generally around the same size for various features. So we might get marketing speak that we're on "10nm" or "7nm" or "5nm", but that doesn't correlate to much. Just like "4G" and "5G" technically mean something, that doesn't mean the carrier offers speeds remotely close to the specification they say they provide. Features lists generally include the transistor gate pitch, interconnect pitch, transistor fin pitch, and transistor fin height. None of these features are actually "10nm" or "7nm, but range anywhere between 30nm-60nm. Although sources are conflicting online, it looks like Intel 10nm is about on par with TSMC 7nm. Some features for Intel's 10nm are larger, while others are smaller than TSMC 7nm. Also _most_ sites are saying Intel 10nm has a higher transistor density, but information is kind of flaky on this metric.

TylerE 8y ago
The way I understand, it’s really more like minimum feature size (like think a trace/wire and not a transistor). So it’s more like a sort of DPI measurement
sehugg 8y ago
Or like CPU clock speeds, which have never correlated directly with performance across families, even when comparing something as old as the 6502 vs. Z80.
- umanwizard 8y ago
  It's not quite the same thing, since CPU clock speeds do in fact have a well-defined meaning.
  - close04 8y ago
    It's starting to get murky. We're back to the point where not everything runs at the same speed (take AVX for example [0]). Add to that that some of the frequencies are turbo, and specific frequencies are only achieved under very specific load conditions, etc. You get something that physically is very clearly defined but in practice it's not. Just like the minimum feature size which doesn't tell you much about the rest of the transistor. Perhaps if they used an average feature size it would make more sense for the regular person. So how are the fabrication sizes different from the frequency that gets advertised on the box? "Oh that? It's only when you load one core. And don't run anything using these specific instructions. And when the temperature isn't too high. And...". [0] https://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mjr/IT/clocks.html https://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mjr/IT/clocks.html
phyller 8y ago
Yea but TSMC's "7nm" is definitely smaller than Intel's "14nm"(+++), which is what Intel is actually on right now, and will be for at least another year.
whynotminot 8y ago
What's funny about this still though is that people keep saying TSMC's 7nm is roughly equivalent to Intel's 10nm like that somehow scores points for Intel... even though Intel hasn't been able to ship their 10nm process for shit. So no matter how you slice it Intel has fallen behind.
- robdachshund 8y ago
  Agreed. Every time I hear this I doubt it entirely. If you are at a smaller size you can pack in more transistors. Does Intel have magic transistors that perform better than smaller ones? No... they are basic logic gates.

TylerE 8y ago

The way I understand, it’s really more like minimum feature size (like think a trace/wire and not a transistor). So it’s more like a sort of DPI measurement

sehugg 8y ago

Or like CPU clock speeds, which have never correlated directly with performance across families, even when comparing something as old as the 6502 vs. Z80.

umanwizard 8y ago
It's not quite the same thing, since CPU clock speeds do in fact have a well-defined meaning.
- close04 8y ago
  It's starting to get murky. We're back to the point where not everything runs at the same speed (take AVX for example [0]). Add to that that some of the frequencies are turbo, and specific frequencies are only achieved under very specific load conditions, etc. You get something that physically is very clearly defined but in practice it's not. Just like the minimum feature size which doesn't tell you much about the rest of the transistor. Perhaps if they used an average feature size it would make more sense for the regular person. So how are the fabrication sizes different from the frequency that gets advertised on the box? "Oh that? It's only when you load one core. And don't run anything using these specific instructions. And when the temperature isn't too high. And...". [0] https://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mjr/IT/clocks.html https://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mjr/IT/clocks.html

phyller 8y ago

Yea but TSMC's "7nm" is definitely smaller than Intel's "14nm"(+++), which is what Intel is actually on right now, and will be for at least another year.

whynotminot 8y ago

What's funny about this still though is that people keep saying TSMC's 7nm is roughly equivalent to Intel's 10nm like that somehow scores points for Intel... even though Intel hasn't been able to ship their 10nm process for shit. So no matter how you slice it Intel has fallen behind.

robdachshund 8y ago
Agreed. Every time I hear this I doubt it entirely. If you are at a smaller size you can pack in more transistors. Does Intel have magic transistors that perform better than smaller ones? No... they are basic logic gates.