3 ms·
The article is saying 10nm is delayed indefinitely. The supporting evidence is not there. Intel is not commenting, and kaby lake likely just means that 10nm wil
by eloff 11y ago
The article is saying 10nm is delayed indefinitely. The supporting evidence is not there. Intel is not commenting, and kaby lake likely just means that 10nm will take more time. After 14nm broadwell was delayed a year, this is not a big surprise to anyone.
The day will come when feature shrinkage will end for silicon based chips, but it is not this day. I hope!
- jolan 11y agoJust seems like they're backing off from publicly committing to a timeline (and probably giving themselves more time to get 10nm right). Which makes a lot of sense given how 14nm went and how long it took to get yields up to acceptable levels. http://forwardthinking.pcmag.com/none/329835-intel-sees-path-to-extend-moore-s-law-to-7nm http://forwardthinking.pcmag.com/none/329835-intel-sees-path... > Krzanich said the company thinks it signaled too much of its intentions to the industry about its 14nm plans, so "we'll be a bit more prudent in releasing information" about new manufacturing nodes. He wouldn't commit to the company's familiar Tick/Tock cadence of releasing a new process node one year and a new architecture the following year, though Smith said the company expects to be on a "fairly normal cadence" and "will talk about 10 nm in the next 12 or 18 months when appropriate." They've stated in the past and recently reiterated that they have a clear path to 10nm.
- astrodust 11y agoIntel was charting out to 6nm, which seems totally insane, and I'm not sure they can push must past that wall. This article from 2011 seems highly relevant: http://www.extremetech.com/computing/97469-is-14nm-the-end-of-the-road-for-silicon-lithography http://www.extremetech.com/computing/97469-is-14nm-the-end-o...