3 ms·
> In order to bring its best single core performance to the desktop market, Intel had to redesign its 10nm product on 14nm, which combines the high throughput
by jonplackett 6y ago
> In order to bring its best single core performance to the desktop market, Intel had to redesign its 10nm product on 14nm, which combines the high throughput of the design with the high frequency of 14nm
Is that just because they couldn't do it at 10nm? I thought the whole point of die shrinking was to get higher frequency, lower heat etc?
- rayiner 6y agoThat is the purpose, but Intel's 10nm process is a cluster--k in terms of execution.
- zerocrates 6y agoMy understanding is that they can't get things to work at 10nm at the high desktop frequencies they use at 14nm. I don't know if that's yield issues, instability, or what... probably a combination of those? My sense is that on laptop, the 10nm stuff is doing... okay. It sure seems like the hope is to limp along on 14(+++++) for a while longer and leap straight to a kinks-worked-out 7?
- tedunangst 6y agoThe article drops some hints that the 10nm parts aren't stable at desktop power levels. Normally process shrink -> reduced power -> more power budget -> higher frequency. The power savings gives you room to push frequency (and power) back up. But it's not working out for 10nm. They're more efficient than 14nm, but they can't spend the energy they're saving on performance.