The "nm" debate

Factum

Factum

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 24, 2014
Messages
2,455
Recently there has been a lot said about Intels 10 nm vs "7nm" from eg TSMC.
David Kanter has some nice info-bit that are sadly lacking in the debate.

There is a reason I put "7 nm" in quotation:


The difference between real nm and PR nm ;)
 
There is a difference to a process that actually works and one that is limited to a certain mm2 without using quotation :) .
https://www.semiaccurate.com/2018/09/17/more-on-intels-10nm-process-problems/

Seems that the solution is no longer "10 nm" to solve yield problems on the Intel process.

The up side to this information is that the new downgraded ’10nm’ process from Intel will not take as big a hit from the removal of this tech as SemiAccurate said earlier, but it will still take a hit.
Click to expand...
 
I don’t think many people care what they call it. If AMD gets a relatively small boost from “7nm” they will be on par with Intel and that’s what matters.

2700x was close enough and my first AMD CPU since the K6 line.
 
Seriously not even enthusiasts truly give a damn about the nm of the chip, we care about how it performs and the regular public really has no clue or care. AMD will be at sub 14nm on a chip people actually want and not that broken chip Intel released for China on 10nm. It's a advantage AMD has never had over Intel, but no one will care about that fact, people will just want to know how it performs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
Gideon said:
Seriously not even enthusiasts truly give a damn about the nm of the chip, we care about how it performs and the regular public really has no clue or care. AMD will be at sub 14nm on a chip people actually want and not that broken chip Intel released for China on 10nm. It's a advantage AMD has never had over Intel, but no one will care about that fact, people will just want to know how it performs.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is more linked to performance but the general premise of the argument is that everyone but Intel is using a PR term while Intel products on 10nm are somewhat PR itself their 10nm released products are not as fast as their 14nm++ counterparts yet when performance matters it is suddenly thrown out of the window. If that is not PR then what is.

I would not even describe it as an academic debate about 10nm vs 7nm and how certain companies come to the conclusion that they need to use marketing terminology while everyone in their field knows exactly what is going on ...
 
nm is for the investors, performance is for the users. For me it matters as much whether the carpenter used flathead or philips screws. What I'm interested in is the quality of the product.
 
M76 said:
nm is for the investors, performance is for the users. For me it matters as much whether the carpenter used flathead or philips screws. What I'm interested in is the quality of the product.
Click to expand...

To what end ? You won't buy a product on principle if it uses process X or Y based on your knowledge of the process?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top