TSMC now sinking asets into developing 2nm node!

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,071
There's always a benefit to AMD CPUS. They hold their value like American cars. You can always buy last gen's on the cheap!

And last gen's are not slow either, it is just that the current gen is that much faster. :)
 

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
2,760
Before people get lost in PR numbers "nm" has been broken ever since TSMC renamed their 20nm Finfet into "16nm" and decided not to follow the pack and just fluff numbers.

Intel's 10nm node is intact smaller than TSMC' 7 nm.
Intel 10nm logic = 54nm x 36nm
TSMC 7 nm logic = 54nm x 40nm

So stop looking at PR numbers...or you delude yourself...just saying ;)

To bad it performs way worse then TSMC, which is the only metric a enthusiast cares about.
 

Dopamin3

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
166
The only way AMD cpu prices are going up is if that special glue they use to put them together goes scarce.

I see you also follow the 100% true, unbiased, fact based Intel marketing.
 

Attachments

  • glue.jpg
    glue.jpg
    181.1 KB · Views: 0

illli

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
1,334
After reading this thread I think the question becomes: when will AMD start getting greedy and screwing us?

maybe if they ever have 80% of the market. which will be never

Their 7nm stuff would not be called 7nm by the ITRS roadmap.

I was wondering when someone would mention this. I don't like slapping a new number on something b/c its going to confuse people.. but things like this happen all the time
 

FaRKle0079

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Messages
2,662
Since it is nowhere near actually having a 2nm pitch size, we'll see "smaller" nodes if nothing else as marketing fluff as things go forward. We have not reached the end of lithography yet, they'll keep improving the process and TSMC's MOU is when they get an improved process tech, call it a smaller node. So I fully expect to see "picometer" nodes in the future, even though it will have nothing to do with actual feature size. As for how small we can actually make things? Who knows but there is some solid research that 1nm may be achievable.

At this point though don't pay any attention to the size that you see coming out of fabs, it is largely detached from reality. Just take it as a marketing term that means "newer, better node." Remember even if there isn't a feature shrink, or only a minimal one, there are other things they can improve like the materials used and so on. So you could very well have a new lithography process that isn't really any smaller than the previous one, but still yields much faster chips.
Before people get lost in PR numbers "nm" has been broken ever since TSMC renamed their 20nm Finfet into "16nm" and decided not to follow the pack and just fluff numbers.

Intel's 10nm node is intact smaller than TSMC' 7 nm.
Intel 10nm logic = 54nm x 36nm
TSMC 7 nm logic = 54nm x 40nm

So stop looking at PR numbers...or you delude yourself...just saying ;)

+1 to these. It's just like how ALD/ALE isn't necessarily precisely a single atomic layer. It can vary to a couple, despite the colloquial marketing term.

TSMC's 7nm node was an evolution of their 10nm, and very similar. N5 however is sufficiently different from their N7 node.
 

sc5mu93

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 11, 2018
Messages
331
sounds to me like Intel 10nm = AMD bulldozer.

Just made a crappy choice that didnt work out so well. Obviously one is an arch decision, and the other is a fab decision but the result for the respective companies has been similar.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,729
If you dont want people to misunderstand you, then your points should be written in a more clear manner.
The FX-60 was a dual-core CPU released in 2006 for $1600, when then high-end CPUs were going for less than $1000 - meaning, at that point, and right before Intel released Conroe (Core 2), AMD started price gouging customers.
The point - since it has to be spelled out for you - is that if Intel doesn't get it's act together soon, the price gouging is going to be reversed and AMD will start doing so, hence why I said competition is needed from both ends, aka, history repeats itself.
 

Sycraft

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
4,793
I was wondering when someone would mention this. I don't like slapping a new number on something b/c its going to confuse people.. but things like this happen all the time

Always a risk when a number becomes something consumers like a "goodness number" that they use to compare one thing to another and decide what it better. Companies will then start marketing it. Remember how that used to be with megapixels and cameras? Every digital camera had to go on about how many megapixels it had, even when it was a tiny lens and looked like crap. Megapixels = good so that got marketed.

Same deal with nodes. Consumers found out about them and got conditioned that smaller node = better, so companies said "cool" and made it a marketing term.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,071
Before people get lost in PR numbers "nm" has been broken ever since TSMC renamed their 20nm Finfet into "16nm" and decided not to follow the pack and just fluff numbers.

Intel's 10nm node is intact smaller than TSMC' 7 nm.
Intel 10nm logic = 54nm x 36nm
TSMC 7 nm logic = 54nm x 40nm

So stop looking at PR numbers...or you delude yourself...just saying ;)

If the way you are presenting this is even close to be accurate, then AMD is just that much more ahead of Intel. Just saying, bet you were not trying to say that. :D
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,071
If Intel and Apple/ARM don't get their shit together soon, we might just see a repeat of the $1600 FX-60 sooner than we think.
Competition is good, but that works both ways!

No and as someone mentioned, it was not nor never $1600. Also, AMD's Lisa Su is not going to let that happen ever. (Yeah, if a Socket AM4 enthusiast part goes to 24 core / 48 threads, of course it will be more expensive but I doubt we would ever see that.)
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,729
MSRP was $1,031, retail was like, $750-850 IIRC. For a halo part. Even factoring inflation the price wasn't gougey.
The FX-60 was going for $1600 in 2006 - I remember seeing it on Newegg, TigerDirect, etc. with that price tag for some time.
You are probably right about the MSRP, but it certainly was never sold for that until a month or so after Conroe released.

$1600 in 2006 would be roughly $2050 in 2020.
That would be like paying over $2000 for a 3950X or 10980XE today - yeah, I would say that is gouging.
 
Last edited:

Axman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
6,379
Third post in this thread from 2006 proves that:
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33841290

As with all FX series processors, the FX-60 debuts at $1031 in quantities of 1000, so you can expect street pricing to be at or around that number. The FX-57 will drop to $827 mark as it will co-exist with the FX-60.

I may have been lowballing the retail price, or remembering a later price, but it was under $1,000 unless you were paying full MSRP.
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
3,029
Intel got greedy with their constantly changing sockets forcing you to buy a new mob every time your wanted to upgrade. .
While completely true and I agree 100% Intel sells the vast bulk of their supply to OEM's and very very few OEM machines ever get anything more than a Ram or HDD upgrade.
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
3,029
sounds to me like Intel 10nm = AMD bulldozer.

Just made a crappy choice that didnt work out so well. Obviously one is an arch decision, and the other is a fab decision but the result for the respective companies has been similar.
Intel's biggest problem with their 10nm node is the design change they made to the transistors, they built their process on a change in the Metal Pinch and a design change that lets them use fewer gaps between the transistors for a significantly higher density. Problem is their gaps are proving to be uneven, their 10nm node was too ambitious with too many changes to design elements. Had they just done a node shrink things would be fine its all the other things they are trying to do at the same time that are biting them in the ass.
 

EniGmA1987

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
429
The FX-60 was a dual-core CPU released in 2006 for $1600, when then high-end CPUs were going for less than $1000 - meaning, at that point, and right before Intel released Conroe (Core 2), AMD started price gouging customers.
The point - since it has to be spelled out for you - is that if Intel doesn't get it's act together soon, the price gouging is going to be reversed and AMD will start doing so, hence why I said competition is needed from both ends, aka, history repeats itself.
If you saw it for $1600 then it was a retailer that was price gouging, not AMD. AMD's price was right around that of top end Intel processors. Its the same situation as during mining craze when low end AMD RX cards were around $1000. If we go by your logic, AMD must have set those 1k price points to price gouge us.


edit: lol. From your thread here:
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33841290
Your proof it was $1600 is from Canadian dollars? Well, ya now it makes sense why you think the price was so high. If your looking at CAD prices then it is always ridiculous due to customs costs, extra shipping, and low CAD vs US. Its no wonder your not "getting it" and think people are misunderstanding your posts. Your comparing apples to oranges with currency
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
3,029
If you saw it for $1600 then it was a retailer that was price gouging, not AMD. AMD's price was right around that of top end Intel processors. Its the same situation as during mining craze when low end AMD RX cards were around $1000. If we go by your logic, AMD must have set those 1k price points to price gouge us.


edit: lol. From your thread here:
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33841290
Your proof it was $1600 is from Canadian dollars? Well, ya now it makes sense why you think the price was so high. If your looking at CAD prices then it is always ridiculous due to customs costs, extra shipping, and low CAD vs US. Its no wonder your not "getting it" and think people are misunderstanding your posts. Your comparing apples to oranges with currency
Yeah Canada doesn't have a lot of importers for computer equipment, and 90% of the supply chain flows through the US so we get a few extra costs along the way. The recent events in the US have started to change our supply chains though so we should have that reduced significantly by mid 2021.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,729
edit: lol. From your thread here:
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33841290
Your proof it was $1600 is from Canadian dollars? Well, ya now it makes sense why you think the price was so high. If your looking at CAD prices then it is always ridiculous due to customs costs, extra shipping, and low CAD vs US. Its no wonder your not "getting it" and think people are misunderstanding your posts. Your comparing apples to oranges with currency
No, it was $1600 USD - I remember seeing it at that price point back then in the US - good catch on the CAD listing in that thread, I didn't see that.
I didn't "think it", however, it actually was selling - by ALL retailers - for $1600 USD back then.

If you saw it for $1600 then it was a retailer that was price gouging, not AMD. AMD's price was right around that of top end Intel processors. Its the same situation as during mining craze when low end AMD RX cards were around $1000. If we go by your logic, AMD must have set those 1k price points to price gouge us.
You could be right about that - still doesn't change the $1600 USD price tag that was on it up until soon after Conroe's release.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,729
I may have been lowballing the retail price, or remembering a later price, but it was under $1,000 unless you were paying full MSRP.
After Conroe released, the prices you mentioned do seem accurate, as I do remember sharp drops in the price after that on the FX-60.
It was a great CPU until Core 2 crushed it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Axman
like this

F.E.A.R.

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
1,455
That Intel anti-trust video was crazy. I've read a lot of it over the years, but seeing it summarized like this..wow just wow. And the Pci-E junk I had to shake my head.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,729
I see you also follow the 100% true, unbiased, fact based Intel marketing.
LMAO at that screenshot! :D
The irony of Intel talking about AMD's "glued together" processors, when Intel literally did this in the mid-2000s with their "dual-core" Netburst and Atom CPUs, using the abysmally slow and high-latency FSB.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,729
That Intel anti-trust video was crazy. I've read a lot of it over the years, but seeing it summarized like this..wow just wow. And the Pci-E junk I had to shake my head.
No kidding, and that video was made in 2017 - before the meltdown, spectre, and 50+ other CPU hardware exploits occurred in Q1 2018. :eek:
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
3,029
How did Intel screw the pooch so bad? It like they completely shut down all their R&D. Did all th engineers they let go to to tsmc and Samsung.
Well their 10nm launch was too ambitious, it wasn't just a reduction they also implemented a new design for transistor gates along with it as well as implementing a new system for dummy gates and some other things at a silicon level. They tried to do too much at once and that ultimately bit them in the ass, so I believe for now they have rolled back some of their expectations for the 10nm and they are getting it going and as their '+' get added to their 10nm line they can start creeping those new design elements in. But yeah their Research departments made some wild discoveries but sadly their Development side couldn't figure out how to make them work without some external help (I recall reading that they hired TSMC to help fix their 10nm node but I can't find it at this time), but Intel's 10nm will be short lived they are likely going to skip most of it for a more traditional 7nm, there is probably a reason that all other manufacturers skipped 10 could be some sort of UV scaling factor and things are just unstable at that scale I'm not too sure but yeah It's not so much a case their their engineers left for TSMC and Samsung but more like their Engineers said "they can't do this but we will!" and doubled down on their ego's.
 

DWolvin

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Messages
2,405
Cheesus, I feel like I’m in Gatlinburg with all the strawmen around here.



How about we just agree that Intel’s 10mm will be awesome if they get it working, TSMC lies about their process size bad has been making respectable progress and AMD’s last couple of years are good for the consumer overall.



I’m not going to martyr myself for a CPU or GPU. Make something good and I’m onboard.
 

Master_shake_

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
14,468
Before people get lost in PR numbers "nm" has been broken ever since TSMC renamed their 20nm Finfet into "16nm" and decided not to follow the pack and just fluff numbers.

Intel's 10nm node is intact smaller than TSMC' 7 nm.
Intel 10nm logic = 54nm x 36nm
TSMC 7 nm logic = 54nm x 40nm

So stop looking at PR numbers...or you delude yourself...just saying ;)

But there goes TSMC making actual useful products out of their 7nm so...
 

GiGaBiTe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,367
LMAO at that screenshot! :D
The irony of Intel talking about AMD's "glued together" processors, when Intel literally did this in the mid-2000s with their "dual-core" Netburst and Atom CPUs, using the abysmally slow and high-latency FSB.

They first did it with the Pentium Pro and later the Pentium II/Xeon where the cache was a completely separate wafer outside the CPU core itself. Later they did it with the Core 2 Quad and later with their mobile parts with integrated graphics.

Intel has their foot in their mouth more often than not.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,729
They first did it with the Pentium Pro and later the Pentium II/Xeon where the cache was a completely separate wafer outside the CPU core itself. Later they did it with the Core 2 Quad and later with their mobile parts with integrated graphics.

Intel has their foot in their mouth more often than not.
You're right, and especially with the Pentium II and III, with the L2 cache running at half-speed.
No wonder everyone liked the Celeron with it's 128KB full-speed cache that OC'ed like a beast - too bad we won't ever see a CPU like that again!
 

erek

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
6,988
This comes from Digitimes courtesy of our friends at The FPS review. This shrinking of processes is coming fast and furious to me. I would love for someone in the thread to detail who exactly are the major players worldwide developing these nodes and why TSMC seems to be killing it. How will this affect enthusiasts? What do these shrinking of processes yield in terms of performance and can we expect to see products based on them soon? These were thoughts that popped into my head, here is the link : https://www.thefpsreview.com/2020/0...es-research-and-development-for-2-nm-process/

TSMC Achieves Major Breakthrough in 2 nm Manufacturing Process, Risk Production in 2023

 

Ebernanut

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
1,354
Not to worry, a couple more pluses behind the 14nm and it will be just as good.

Seriously though does anyone want to bet whether Intel even has 7nm producing well by 2023 much less any 3-5nm production or whatever they think will compete with this?
 

Verge

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 27, 2001
Messages
6,677
Just like when we went from micrometer to nanometer, we will eventually go from nm to picometer. Probably from there, we would eventually get down to a femtometer. By the time we even come close to thinking about femtometer process nodes though, we will probably end up engineering the protons, neutrons, and electrons of the atom to create some sort of quantum transistors rather than "conventional" materials.
I don't think it's possible to go much lower than 2nm with electronic circuits.
 

J Macker

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 25, 2001
Messages
10,087
Not only did they get greedy and lazy, they did some SERIOUSLY shady stuff over the years. I had an i7 920 then i7 4790k, now happy with Ryzen :) Not only for the performance but to support a company that isn't abusive like Intel.

Long winded video, grab some popcorn and learn of Intel's abuse over the years:

Dang. I had read about some of this over the years, but didn't ever pull all the details together. I remember that AMD financials were really suffering when they accepted the $1.25B payment to settle litigation. I didn't realize how small of a settlement this was compared to all the rebate payment amounts.

This makes me want to buy a Ryzen 5600X instead of a Ryzen 3100 I was planning on for our kids computer upgrade.
 
Top