3 ms·

Here's a report of a scan of Intel's 14nm technology: http://www.chipworks.com/en/technical-competitive-analysis/resources/blog/intels-14-nm-parts-are-finally-h

Here's a report of a scan of Intel's 14nm technology: http://www.chipworks.com/en/technical-competitive-analysis/resources/blog/intels-14-nm-parts-are-finally-here/ http://www.chipworks.com/en/technical-competitive-analysis/r... A good example for the problem with naming conventions is that Intel's 14nm M1 has lower pitch (i.e., lower distance between wire centres) than the 14nm technology of competitors; at least as claimed by Intel some time last years and apparently confirmed by the linked article.

minthd 12y ago
One way around this problem(of different densities for transistors and wires), is a new metric that multiplies the resolution of both(lower is better). Intel's metric is 3640, Samsung is 4990.It's from [1]. So Intel has 27% area advantage over Samsung. Although of course it's very design dependent.As for cost, there are other parameters, so it's a bit harder to tell.For example, today's 28nm is cheaper than the denser 20nm because it's a simpler process. [1]https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/3884-who-will-lead-10nm.html https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/3884-who-will-lead-10... - if i'm not mistaken samsungs's 16nm should be 14nm.