4 ms·
Angstrom's? I think the connection to actual feature sizes is long gone, and not sure intel 3nm is really comparable with TSMC? Anyone have a process comparison
by slownews45 5y ago
Angstrom's? I think the connection to actual feature sizes is long gone, and not sure intel 3nm is really comparable with TSMC? Anyone have a process comparison?
Also, key issue - ignore the roadmap and just start shipping you 10 and 7nm process stuff.
Seriously, every time I read about a TSMC process it seems to already be in risk production. Then in the next year all of a sudden Apple and friends are releasing nice product. The hamster wheel here with apple funding huge $$ into TSMC must be amazing as well.
With intel we've been hearing about 7nm forever, how the intel chips are going to crush (2x performance etc) AMD chips. But they never ship these things.
- monocasa 5y agoIntel 3 is what used to be called Intel 7nm+, which is more or less equivalent to newer batches of TSMC N5.
- slownews45 5y agoPerfect - thank you!
- smoldesu 5y agoI mean, this is nothing new. If you want newer processes, AMD does a pretty good job of keeping their Zen architecture on the cutting edge without under-engineering the end product. Intel's bag has always been about selling very specific things to specific audiences: bare-metal virtualization for people on Windows/MacOS (rip), super-wide SIMD busses, special overclockable models, IMEI, the list goes on. Intel, much like Apple, is selling a product that supposedly offers a better "experience" than their competitors, which moves like gangbusters in the corporate sector.
- imtringued 5y agoThose numbers refer to what a planar transistor would have to look like to achieve the same density. Of course nobody is actually using planar transistors anymore.
- MichaelZuo 5y agoAre you sure? If so TSMC and Intel must have discovered different ways of calculating surface area densities…