3 ms·

I am a pretty hardcore AMD fan, but fair is fair: > whatever is gong on with 10nm The modern 'nanometer system' is nothing more than a bizarre versioning sche

I am a pretty hardcore AMD fan, but fair is fair: > whatever is gong on with 10nm The modern 'nanometer system' is nothing more than a bizarre versioning scheme (specifically its usually the 'major' portion of a semver), and you wouldn't be able to identify a physical thing to measure to compare different fabs. Intel wouldn't have been competitive if they were still on their own 14nm process.

wtallis 4y ago
Like it or not, "10nm" is the official label for Intel's most pronounced and prolonged fuck-up since the Pentium 4 dead-end. The fact that node names have little to do with node geometry is irrelevant here (nobody's trying to compare competing process nodes on the basis of nominal size); what matters is that Intel didn't finish moving their CPUs past 14nm until last year. Their recent and long-term inability to ship a functional and profitable new process across all CPU product segments combined with their inability to adjust their CPU design roadmap to account for their fab problems is highly relevant to any discussion of their future prospects, even if the discussion makes use of Intel's technically inaccurate nomenclature.