4 ms·
I think your citation is 9 years old. What I've always heard is what they called 10 nm was non-EUV. You are correct that what they called 7 nm was going to us
by Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
I think your citation is 9 years old. What I've always heard is what they called 10 nm was non-EUV. You are correct that what they called 7 nm was going to use EUV, pretty much had to, but 10 nm catastrophically failed and the company responded very poorly to that.
Not that long ago I remember reading, forget at what confidence level, that their old 7 mn was believed to have the potential to leapfrog their 10 nm and save the company, but others said they had some problematic things in common (not counting the very poorly run company!) that made that unlikely. In any event what was 7 nm did not ride to the company's rescue.
- adrian_b 4y agoTheir 7 nm process has been renamed now as "Intel 4" and there is a presentation of it at Anandtech, which looks more credible than the fake presentations of the 10 nm process of some years ago. The first product using this process, Meteor Lake, is expected 1 year from now.
- Throwawayaerlei 4y agoMeteor Lake/Intel 4 would then be six years late if the wccftech.com article's commentary on the two nodes was correct. Good to hear about the presentation material, thanks!