4 ms·

It is a challenge and there are no guarantees. Intel has to delivery as much as possible on that roadmap, otherwise this management team is Kaput! edit: Intel

It is a challenge and there are no guarantees. Intel has to delivery as much as possible on that roadmap, otherwise this management team is Kaput! edit: Intel seems to play a bit of marketing games here. (source Anand tech). 2021 H2, Intel 7: Previously known as 10nm Enhanced Super Fin or 10ESF. 2022 H2, Intel 4: Previously known as Intel 7nm.

LeegleechN 5y ago
Their competition are the ones who played marketing games already, skipping forward a node relative to pre FinFET scaling. Intel's rename aligns it with the rest of the industry in terms of transistor density on each process number. None of these numbers have aligned with physical features on the chip for a while, so they are just an arbitrary convention now. It's better for all of the manufacturers to use the same convention.
- sremani 5y ago
  Could be, was informed (on HN) that Intel 10nm was more like Samsung 7nm and this is sort of adjusting to that.
- paul_f 5y ago
  Correct! Numbers like 10nm and 7nm are no longer fully define the process.
klelatti 5y ago
Also what does 'deliver' really mean for a process - first 10nm shipped was in 2018!
mike256 5y ago
At least they name it Intel 7, Intel 4, ... And don't add missleading 'nm' to their names. Imho much better as what the other ones are doing.
HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago
Everybody, apparently except Intel, has already been doing this for years. It's been a long time since process names such as "7nm" actually reflected a minimum feature size of 7nm, and even if it did differing transistor designs means you can no longer predict transistor size/density from minimum feature size. A much more meaningful way to compare processes across different manufacturers is directly by transistor density, but the "nm" process generation naming tradition is so entrenched that every one is still using it but fudging the number in some sort of attempt to position/align their own processes against those of competitors. Of course it's not just transistor density that matters, but also power usage and speed, and no one number can capture it all

LeegleechN 5y ago

Their competition are the ones who played marketing games already, skipping forward a node relative to pre FinFET scaling. Intel's rename aligns it with the rest of the industry in terms of transistor density on each process number. None of these numbers have aligned with physical features on the chip for a while, so they are just an arbitrary convention now. It's better for all of the manufacturers to use the same convention.

sremani 5y ago
Could be, was informed (on HN) that Intel 10nm was more like Samsung 7nm and this is sort of adjusting to that.
paul_f 5y ago
Correct! Numbers like 10nm and 7nm are no longer fully define the process.

klelatti 5y ago

Also what does 'deliver' really mean for a process - first 10nm shipped was in 2018!

mike256 5y ago

At least they name it Intel 7, Intel 4, ... And don't add missleading 'nm' to their names. Imho much better as what the other ones are doing.

HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago

Everybody, apparently except Intel, has already been doing this for years. It's been a long time since process names such as "7nm" actually reflected a minimum feature size of 7nm, and even if it did differing transistor designs means you can no longer predict transistor size/density from minimum feature size. A much more meaningful way to compare processes across different manufacturers is directly by transistor density, but the "nm" process generation naming tradition is so entrenched that every one is still using it but fudging the number in some sort of attempt to position/align their own processes against those of competitors. Of course it's not just transistor density that matters, but also power usage and speed, and no one number can capture it all