4 ms·

Browsing WikiChip is advisable here https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/technology_node https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/technology_node The short answer is that Intel i

Browsing WikiChip is advisable here https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/technology_node https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/technology_node The short answer is that Intel is the only foundry that even tries to keep its "technology node" in step with feature size. I give them a lot of credit for it because technology node 'deflation' by their competitors has been very successful in misleading consumers and even tech-savvy people.

qeternity 7y ago
Thanks for the link. Interesting in this war that they have taken the high route, whereas in the gigahertz wars, AMD had to creatively name their components so that consumers knew which Intel parts they were roughly comparable to.
- dghughes 7y ago
  It was so hard back in the late 1990s to overcome the indoctrination we all went through. I built an AMD Athlon system but it took a lot of work and self-searching to make that leap. It was like leaving a cult.
ineedasername 7y ago
How much is just marketing & deflation though? Presumably TSMC wouldn't put out nearly $20 billion if there wasn't some practical improvement?
ksec 7y ago
>The short answer is that Intel is the only foundry that even tries to keep its "technology node" in step with feature size. I give them a lot of credit for it because technology node 'deflation' by their competitors has been very successful in misleading consumers and even tech-savvy people. 1. That somewhat implies Intel is telling the truth with its features size and all others are lying, when today's features size are all pretty much marketing terms. 2. The misleading also somewhat implies Intel had the better transistor but marketing from other firms mislead consumers. Had Intel labeled their late, and not yielding latest iteration of 10nm to 7nm ( which is different to their original version of 10nm ) they would still be behind TSMC's 7nm ( Whether that is N7, N7P, or N7+ ) in both technological advance, yield and total volume output. 3. The node "deflation' started with Samsung Foundry. Morris Chang, CEO of TSMC at the time said during investor conference, they renamed their Node because their competitors ( No name given ) uses it and they were getting lots of marketing, investor and most importantly customer's pressures. If company A came out with Samsung Foundry 10nm, company B would also want to be at least 10 or 11nm. He also add the naming system before the renaming already had little relevance to the actual transistor size.
dzhiurgis 7y ago
> has been very successful in misleading consumers and even tech-savvy people. Run some common benchmarks on iPhone and on a beefy top of the line developer machine, then tell me how I am mislead.

qeternity 7y ago

Thanks for the link. Interesting in this war that they have taken the high route, whereas in the gigahertz wars, AMD had to creatively name their components so that consumers knew which Intel parts they were roughly comparable to.

dghughes 7y ago
It was so hard back in the late 1990s to overcome the indoctrination we all went through. I built an AMD Athlon system but it took a lot of work and self-searching to make that leap. It was like leaving a cult.

ineedasername 7y ago

How much is just marketing & deflation though? Presumably TSMC wouldn't put out nearly $20 billion if there wasn't some practical improvement?

ksec 7y ago

>The short answer is that Intel is the only foundry that even tries to keep its "technology node" in step with feature size. I give them a lot of credit for it because technology node 'deflation' by their competitors has been very successful in misleading consumers and even tech-savvy people. 1. That somewhat implies Intel is telling the truth with its features size and all others are lying, when today's features size are all pretty much marketing terms. 2. The misleading also somewhat implies Intel had the better transistor but marketing from other firms mislead consumers. Had Intel labeled their late, and not yielding latest iteration of 10nm to 7nm ( which is different to their original version of 10nm ) they would still be behind TSMC's 7nm ( Whether that is N7, N7P, or N7+ ) in both technological advance, yield and total volume output. 3. The node "deflation' started with Samsung Foundry. Morris Chang, CEO of TSMC at the time said during investor conference, they renamed their Node because their competitors ( No name given ) uses it and they were getting lots of marketing, investor and most importantly customer's pressures. If company A came out with Samsung Foundry 10nm, company B would also want to be at least 10 or 11nm. He also add the naming system before the renaming already had little relevance to the actual transistor size.

dzhiurgis 7y ago

> has been very successful in misleading consumers and even tech-savvy people. Run some common benchmarks on iPhone and on a beefy top of the line developer machine, then tell me how I am mislead.