4 ms·

They should also announce a switch to the more fantastical nm sizes as well in their next node.

MR4D 6y ago
Looks like you got downvoted for this, but honestly, I wonder how much INTC gets dinged in the stock market because of this. No idea how to measure the impact, but I'm sure it's in the tens of billions. It doesn't even matter if it's right or wrong - it matters because the headline of 7nm vs 5nm sucks for INTC stock. I think Intel could easily put some marketing language about shifting to an "industry standard measurement practice" or something similar (remember, it's not for techies, but the people who buy INTC stock).
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  Investors know this.
  - MR4D 6y ago
    Some investors do. If everyone did, then things like GME would never happen.
gumby 6y ago
While I agree 100%, I feel compelled to point out that it was Intel who for years embraced and encouraged the bullshit use of clock speed as the metric of performance. Entirely precise yet only partially meaningful, which is just as true of the chase for node bragging rights. So there's some karmic justice in Intel being pilloried for being behind in this way.
- totalZero 6y ago
  Not quite. Node numbers don't actually correspond to transistor gate length. So it would be like one company saying "we run at 3GHz" and the other saying "we run at 4GHz" when both run at 4GHz. Separately, what you are saying is true -- size is not the be-all-end-all of processor performance. But GP is referring to the dislocation between nomenclature and geometry.
- ghaff 6y ago
  That's because Intel was on the single-threaded performance bandwagon for at least one beat too long. (Which was at the time of AMD's first renaissance with Opteron and multi-core.) Which a certain Intel exec--I was an analyst at the time--told me was because Microsoft had such a lack of confidence in their ability to pivot to multi-core architectures. And I have no reason to especially disbelieve that. Interestingly, the shift to multi-core on the desktop hasn't been the big problem that a lot of people feared it would be. I remember hobbling on crutches cross-country to SF for an Intel quad core (?) launch and there was a lot of hand-wringing on the topic but mostly things worked out.
  - gumby 6y ago
    Even considering only single core machines, so much affects workload throughput: thermals, IO system, IO devices...punters were paying a premium for "high speed" laptops that were slower than a desktop with the same clock speed. This bit Apple too when they boasted of their PPC clock speed, only to fall behind in both clock speed and performance. (I'm a Mac user: this is bipartisan criticism). I'd say I'm glad those days are over, but of course the deceptive metrics have merely been replaced with different deceptive metrics.
  - frandroid 6y ago
    The Athlon line was AMD's first Renaissance!
    - systemvoltage 6y ago
      And Opteron.

MR4D 6y ago

Looks like you got downvoted for this, but honestly, I wonder how much INTC gets dinged in the stock market because of this. No idea how to measure the impact, but I'm sure it's in the tens of billions. It doesn't even matter if it's right or wrong - it matters because the headline of 7nm vs 5nm sucks for INTC stock. I think Intel could easily put some marketing language about shifting to an "industry standard measurement practice" or something similar (remember, it's not for techies, but the people who buy INTC stock).

systemvoltage 6y ago
Investors know this.
- MR4D 6y ago
  Some investors do. If everyone did, then things like GME would never happen.

gumby 6y ago

While I agree 100%, I feel compelled to point out that it was Intel who for years embraced and encouraged the bullshit use of clock speed as the metric of performance. Entirely precise yet only partially meaningful, which is just as true of the chase for node bragging rights. So there's some karmic justice in Intel being pilloried for being behind in this way.

totalZero 6y ago
Not quite. Node numbers don't actually correspond to transistor gate length. So it would be like one company saying "we run at 3GHz" and the other saying "we run at 4GHz" when both run at 4GHz. Separately, what you are saying is true -- size is not the be-all-end-all of processor performance. But GP is referring to the dislocation between nomenclature and geometry.
ghaff 6y ago
That's because Intel was on the single-threaded performance bandwagon for at least one beat too long. (Which was at the time of AMD's first renaissance with Opteron and multi-core.) Which a certain Intel exec--I was an analyst at the time--told me was because Microsoft had such a lack of confidence in their ability to pivot to multi-core architectures. And I have no reason to especially disbelieve that. Interestingly, the shift to multi-core on the desktop hasn't been the big problem that a lot of people feared it would be. I remember hobbling on crutches cross-country to SF for an Intel quad core (?) launch and there was a lot of hand-wringing on the topic but mostly things worked out.
- gumby 6y ago
  Even considering only single core machines, so much affects workload throughput: thermals, IO system, IO devices...punters were paying a premium for "high speed" laptops that were slower than a desktop with the same clock speed. This bit Apple too when they boasted of their PPC clock speed, only to fall behind in both clock speed and performance. (I'm a Mac user: this is bipartisan criticism). I'd say I'm glad those days are over, but of course the deceptive metrics have merely been replaced with different deceptive metrics.
- frandroid 6y ago
  The Athlon line was AMD's first Renaissance!
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    And Opteron.