3 ms·

The NYT would do well to have a technical person proofread these articles before publishing them. There are several obvious errors.

• fortran77 4y ago
  It would help us if you provided a few examples.
  • williadc 4y ago
    I didn't spot any factual errors, but I did notice that NYT uses Intel's titles for processes that aren't used widely by other silicon design teams: * "Validation" as used by Intel to describe what other groups would refer to "silicon validation" or "product validation". Intel also confusingly uses "validation" as a term for pre-silicon validation, which I've seen more commonly referred to as "digital verification" or "DV" where RTL is executed in a simulator and the results compared against tests. I also don't recall seeing them mention "emulation" (where RTL is loaded onto massive FPGAs and exercised at higher speeds than what the simulator can accomplish). * "tape-in" is what the factory does after processing the data files sent by the design teams. Most design teams refer to it as "tape-out." I remember there was another Intel-ism, but it didn't stick with me.
  • johnklos 4y ago
    In addition to what williadc wrote: "had started making processors from multiple chips bundled together in plastic packages." Other things are just poor wording choices, which are unfortunately common from non-technical journalists.