4 ms·

> They are currently somewhere between 3-5 times behind TSMC lithographically No they aren't. The nanometer names are only kinda comparable within a single com

> They are currently somewhere between 3-5 times behind TSMC lithographically No they aren't. The nanometer names are only kinda comparable within a single company, but they are not comparable beyond that. It's like saying that Chrome is 6x further ahead than Safari because Chrome is on 87 and Safari is only on 14. Same thing with fabs here, it's just a version number that counts down and has been for a long while. In this case specifically, Intel's 10nm is more or less the same density as TSMC's 7nm. TSMC's 5nm is then a significant 1.8x the density of their 7nm process, so right now Intel's fabs are ~identical to what AMD is using (7nm), but Apple's use of TSMC's 5nm then puts them a generation ahead. TSMC is leading, but by a single generation not by 3-5x or whatever. Or to put it in year terms TSMC is about 2 years ahead of Intel right now, Intel just now getting "volume" 10nm up & running while TSMC was at a comparable node in volume 2 years ago. As far as "performance" goes, though, so far TSMC, even their 5nm process, cannot quite match Intel. Remember that as far as the fab goes, performance is just what clock speeds can be hit, and Intel's clocks are the highest - they have the fastest transistors. 14nm+++++ is a meme/joke, but the actual transistor speed of it is still downright impressive. How fast a CPU actually runs depends on the architecture, though, which is influenced by density but in terms of pure single-core performance that's really almost entirely just architecture.

mhh__ 6y ago
Intel still can't make 10nm in any decent volume. TSMC are shipping chips at something like 170MTr/mm^2, the bulk of Intel's production (even their new chips) are still closer to 40-50MTr/mm^2
- kllrnohj 6y ago
  Intel can't make large 10nm dies, or at least isn't, but there's quite a few 10nm mobile parts and they are on their second shipping generation of those parts. Which are shipping in volume, or at least volume-enough for the likes of Dell to put the 10nm CPUs in most of their lineup including the XPS series. Which is about where TSMC's 7nm was 2 years ago, too. And TSMC's 170MTr/mm^2 is still restricted to a single vendor and hasn't ramped up beyond that yet. You can't simultaneously claim Intel is restricted to what their bulk volume lineup is and then use TSMC's non-volume lineup. The bulk of TSMC is still 7nm which is 100MTr/mm^2.
jabl 6y ago
> Remember that as far as the fab goes, performance is just what clock speeds can be hit, and Intel's clocks are the highest - they have the fastest transistors. 14nm+++++ is a meme/joke, but the actual transistor speed of it is still downright impressive. My understanding is that Intel's fast transistors come at a cost of not being particularly dense for the process node they are implemented on. So it's a question of design philosophy as well. Intel has fast, but somewhat sparse transistors, they use a lot of hand layout etc. to really optimize their designs so they can clock high. Other players use a different philosophy. Slower, but denser transistors and more automated layout may not clock as high, but the improved density gives you more cores (e.g. AMD vs Intel) and/or allows a more "brainiac" core design (wider, deeper ROB, better branch prediction, more cache, etc. like Apple M1), and also gets you a better turnaround time.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

mhh__ 6y ago

Intel still can't make 10nm in any decent volume. TSMC are shipping chips at something like 170MTr/mm^2, the bulk of Intel's production (even their new chips) are still closer to 40-50MTr/mm^2

kllrnohj 6y ago
Intel can't make large 10nm dies, or at least isn't, but there's quite a few 10nm mobile parts and they are on their second shipping generation of those parts. Which are shipping in volume, or at least volume-enough for the likes of Dell to put the 10nm CPUs in most of their lineup including the XPS series. Which is about where TSMC's 7nm was 2 years ago, too. And TSMC's 170MTr/mm^2 is still restricted to a single vendor and hasn't ramped up beyond that yet. You can't simultaneously claim Intel is restricted to what their bulk volume lineup is and then use TSMC's non-volume lineup. The bulk of TSMC is still 7nm which is 100MTr/mm^2.

jabl 6y ago

> Remember that as far as the fab goes, performance is just what clock speeds can be hit, and Intel's clocks are the highest - they have the fastest transistors. 14nm+++++ is a meme/joke, but the actual transistor speed of it is still downright impressive. My understanding is that Intel's fast transistors come at a cost of not being particularly dense for the process node they are implemented on. So it's a question of design philosophy as well. Intel has fast, but somewhat sparse transistors, they use a lot of hand layout etc. to really optimize their designs so they can clock high. Other players use a different philosophy. Slower, but denser transistors and more automated layout may not clock as high, but the improved density gives you more cores (e.g. AMD vs Intel) and/or allows a more "brainiac" core design (wider, deeper ROB, better branch prediction, more cache, etc. like Apple M1), and also gets you a better turnaround time.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]