4 ms·
Right, that's the spin. You have to put a "seems to" on "have the best numbers" because there are no numbers. If there numbers were the "best", then they woul
by ajross 2y ago
Right, that's the spin. You have to put a "seems to" on "have the best numbers" because there are no numbers. If there numbers were the "best", then they would give them. They did not. So... they probably aren't. Or there are other complexities they don't want to reveal.
- zozbot234 2y ago> If there numbers were the "best", then they would give them. They did not. So... they probably aren't. I'm not sure that we can say that. They may be keeping their cards close to their chest for any number of reasons. Unless they think they also had "bad" numbers in the past several years when they were doing the same thing.
- WhitneyLand 2y agoNo, that’s not how it works. TSMC publishes industrial research, not pure science research like a university. In this context the amount of detail they release is careful balance of PR benefit vs. competitive advantage vs. patent status vs. keeping their talent happy because good researches want their names in prestigious journals.
- ajross 2y agoPlease. "What is the fin pitch of the process you're releasing next quarter?" is hardly an IP-compromising secret. This stuff is and always has been routine disclosure in advance of technology revisions, analogous to "Our Next Software Version Will Support X and Y". You can excuse it if you insist, but it's pretty clear that we're being primed for 2nm to be at most an incremental improvement.
- nsteel 2y agoDoes the undisputed market leader need to advertise like this? There's no other gig in town. Samsung can't yield, Intel is... Yeh.