4 ms·
Whatever. This is yet another pure marketing move to get their name on YouTube videos. Almost nobody ( in their right mind ) would pay top dollar to have that
by PedroBatista 7y ago
Whatever.
This is yet another pure marketing move to get their name on YouTube videos.
Almost nobody ( in their right mind ) would pay top dollar to have that mini nuclear reactor.
- DaiPlusPlus 7y ago> Almost nobody ( in their right mind ) would pay top dollar to have that mini nuclear reactor. Give it a few years after die-shrinks and efficiency improvements. A 5Ghz clock means a lot for solving problems that aren't parallelizable.
- zaarn 7y agoI doubt Intel can pull off another die shrink after the 10nm disaster. It was supposed to come out three years ago IIRC and they have sunk incredibly amounts of money into the process node. The next node will take longer purely on Intel being more careful.
- szatkus 7y agoProcesses aren't dependant on previous ones. For example AMD screwed up with 65nm, but 45nm were just fine (although under GloFo, but the work had started much earlier). If the next process won't work their only option would be to switch to TSMC.
- mamon 7y ago7nm process is already in preparation, with the launch scheduled to 2021, and Intel says they are on track, actually very happy with their progress. They worked on both processes in parallel.
- qes 7y agoIntel's 7nm is also smaller than TMSC's 7nm.
- Bootwizard 7y agoTSMC has already shrunken their die to 7nm. Intel can't keep up anymore. AMD wins this generation.
- big_chungus 7y agoIntel still beats on IPC. Their nodes are better-performing at the same process size, so they can be a little larger and still perform like a smaller AMD. That said, AMD is doing significantly better.
- Someone1234 7y agoTheir advantage has largely been eaten away by their various performance harming security fixes.
- kllrnohj 7y agoAMD is winning on IPC. Zen2 soundly passed up Intel on IPC. Intel's higher clocks are its only remaining strength through which it can overcome the lower IPC just barely.
- big_chungus 7y agoHmm, my information is old. Thanks for the update. I was aware AMD had been better value for money for quite some time, but didn't know they had lost even IPC... big trouble for them. Makes me almost wonder if intel was purposely holding back 10nm until it really needed it. AMD beats on IPC, intel suddenly fixes their garbage?
- kllrnohj 7y ago> Makes me almost wonder if intel was purposely holding back 10nm until it really needed it. Why would they do that? Intel didn't need to knock it out of the park, but they'd make more money doing yet another incremental improvement on 10nm just to get all the upgrade money. And to add in those laptop improvement features (wifi 6, integrated thunderbolt 3). I'd understand them holding back large IPC improvements just to trickle it out, but holding back 10nm entirely doesn't make sense. Especially since it'd let them do even higher core count Xeon chips which make stupid huge profit. > AMD beats on IPC, intel suddenly fixes their garbage? Except AMD has beaten Intel on IPC and yet Intel has still not been able to fix their garbage. So much so they're doing yet another 14nm line of laptop SKUs (Comet Lake)
- anon777778 7y ago> Give it a few years after die-shrinks There is no guarantee that after shrinking the transistor it will be possible to reach 5Ghz. For example Intel has multiple problems with 10nm process and newer CPUs have lower clocks.
- bonzini 7y agoDie shrinks are hardly a thing anymore. The days of tick-tock are gone.
- szatkus 7y agoWe've gained more from IPC improvements (like 5-15% per generation) than clocks.
- opencl 7y agoIntel's 10nm die shrink gives significantly lower clocks than their 14nm process though Ice Lake supposedly makes up for it with higher IPC.
- robdachshund 7y agoThe whole issue is that Intel cannot die shrink anymore and are stuck at 14nm
- forgot-my-pw 7y agoWinter is a comin'! Get the new Intel® Core™ i9 to warm up your whole house.