3 ms·
Yeah, it’s dishonest, but the consumers of their processors most often look at benchmarks, not nm width. The only people this might actually fool will be casual
by jimbob45 5y ago
Yeah, it’s dishonest, but the consumers of their processors most often look at benchmarks, not nm width. The only people this might actually fool will be casual stock traders.
- monocasa 5y agoYeah, I don't blame them that much when tech news always had to be "TSMC 5nm.. essentially equivalent to Intel 7nm" when talking nodes. The numbers have been made up for a while (even on the Intel side). Some of those numbers are very curious though. Intel has historically had an issue with managers gaming bonus structures and some of this reeks of that too. "We're totally shipping Intel 7 this year (because it's what was 10nm+)"
- rrss 5y agohow is it dishonest? the numbers are basically arbitrary anyway (the only metric even close to these figures is fin width, which is not really a metric of primary interest), and they've chosen to realign to numbers that more closely match comparable TSMC nodes and acknowledge that it doesn't really measure anything by dropping the 'nanometer'.
- monocasa 5y agoWell, they didn't align with TSMC. They end up jumping ahead of TSMC by a node.