2 ms·
Dishonesty aside, this hits like a ton of bricks: FOUR YEARS to leadership. Even with Moore's law slowing, that is a loooong time. I remember when Intel had see
by AtlasBarfed 5y ago
Dishonesty aside, this hits like a ton of bricks: FOUR YEARS to leadership. Even with Moore's law slowing, that is a loooong time. I remember when Intel had seemingly a two year lead in process, around 65nm I think.
And now, project four years to leadership, and assuming the economics and competition won't respond.
If Moore's Law hits a major wall (it has to ... sometime, right?), then that may be the catch-up.
- monocasa 5y agoIt won't even be leadership. TSMC 3nm is about equivalent to Intel 20A, and is hitting risk production by the end of this year. It reads to me as sugarcoating the admission that they're continuing to fall behind.
- IanCutress 5y agoIntel is moving to GAA on 20A. TSMC is moving to GAA on N2. Just to put that into perspective
- heisenbit 5y agoIt is not clear at all that these games work. In April SemiAccurate already warned: Intel should not rename their processes Analysis: An unwinnable fight should not be picked https://www.semiaccurate.com/2021/04/07/intel-should-not-rename-their-processes/ https://www.semiaccurate.com/2021/04/07/intel-should-not-ren...
- thunkshift1 5y ago4 years is an acceptable timeline. We are not taking about software product roadmaps here. If you consider the amount of time and time and effort it took apple, amazon to come out just with chip designs, this is reasonable. While its true that tsmc “3, 4 nm” are ok track for 2022.. its debatable if that naming means what it actually implies. Also tsmc had priority access to euv solutions this time around.. lets wait and see if Intel can deliver before passing judgement outright.