Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 17 to 32 of 39

Thread: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

  1. #17
    RIP Peterb ik9000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,139
    Thanks
    1,640
    Thanked
    1,224 times in 919 posts
    • ik9000's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P7H55-M/USB3
      • CPU:
      • i7-870, Prolimatech Megahalems, 2x Akasa Apache 120mm
      • Memory:
      • 4x4GB Corsair Vengeance 2133 11-11-11-27
      • Storage:
      • 2x256GB Samsung 840-Pro, 1TB Seagate 7200.12, 1TB Seagate ES.2
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte GTX 460 1GB SuperOverClocked
      • PSU:
      • NZXT Hale 90 750w
      • Case:
      • BitFenix Survivor + Bitfenix spectre LED fans, LG BluRay R/W optical drive
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Professional
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2414h, U2311h 1920x1080
      • Internet:
      • 200Mb/s Fibre and 4G wifi

    Re: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    It will mean the Intel process nodes might get moved down a few numbers. For example Intel 14NM is actually closer to 10NM/12NM nodes from other companies in certain aspects,and their 10NM process node is closer to TSMC 7NM in certain aspects.
    Only on certain aspects, not on others. It's just to try and make it look better to ignorant investors who know the difference between 10,12 and 14 on a page but don't understand what that means beyond it. So by being able to print 10nm when AMD is on 7nm looks better than 14nm when AMD is on 7nm.


    Hexus actually did a good article on this based on Der8auer's videos etc:
    Quote Originally Posted by Hexus
    Gate height is very similar [for intel 14nm vs TSMC 7nm (ie AMD Ryzen)] but with the guidelines superimposed in the comparison below you can see that TSMC has indeed produced a processor with tighter spacing between the transistors
    Quote Originally Posted by Hexus
    Another metric, probably worth closer consideration is transistor density, as revealed by the chip fabricators. Intel 10 nm and TSMC 7nm processes both produce dies with approx 90 million transistors per sq millimetre. Moving forward both Intel and TSMC are targeting approx 150MT/mm² for their upcoming 7nm and 5nm processes
    Quote Originally Posted by hexus
    Again though, other factors make differences, like transistor type and chip architecture, that make direct comparisons difficult.
    So to compare apples with apples, what kind of transistor, what doping materials, what are the operating voltages and TDP, leakage currents, overall density, net per-transistor spacing, and overall transistor density per unit area, and ditto but normalised for power input/heat output and efficiency etc.
    Last edited by ik9000; 31-03-2021 at 06:27 PM. Reason: Hexus article link added

  2. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Wonderful Warwick!
    Posts
    3,688
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    164 times in 137 posts

    Re: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    Quote Originally Posted by ik9000 View Post
    Wasn't the original core architecture a spin off from the pentium M line, or have I garbled that Baldric-fashion?
    I have a cunning plan....
    Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!

  3. Received thanks from:

    Output (31-03-2021)

  4. #19
    Alien Symbiote Sumanji's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    1,980
    Thanks
    123
    Thanked
    56 times in 36 posts
    • Sumanji's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus ROG Crosshair VII Hero
      • CPU:
      • AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB G.Skill TridentZ C16 3600MHz
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 970 EVO PLUS 2TB, Samsung 970 EVO 500GB, Samsung 860 EVO 1TB, Western Digital Blue 2TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire Radeon Vega 64
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic Prime Ultra Titanium 850W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Meshify C TG
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG 34GK950F 34" (3440x1440 @144Hz)
      • Internet:
      • Comcast Xfinity (400 / 20)

    Re: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    Quote Originally Posted by [GSV]Trig View Post
    I'm pretty sure AMD tried this back in the day, where their products weren't as fast as the Intel ones, and Intel ripped into them for it, naming things based on their perceived performance rather than what they actually were....
    Back in the Athlon XP days, AMD had an IPC advantage, but didn't clock as highly... so my old Athlon XP 2200+ clocked at 1.8GHz, actually competed with a 2.2GHz Pentium 4, hence the naming convention to make them sound the "same speed". It was a smart move when Joey Average typically used to just look at clock speed as the one defining number for CPU choice.

    Su

  5. #20
    RIP Peterb ik9000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,139
    Thanks
    1,640
    Thanked
    1,224 times in 919 posts
    • ik9000's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P7H55-M/USB3
      • CPU:
      • i7-870, Prolimatech Megahalems, 2x Akasa Apache 120mm
      • Memory:
      • 4x4GB Corsair Vengeance 2133 11-11-11-27
      • Storage:
      • 2x256GB Samsung 840-Pro, 1TB Seagate 7200.12, 1TB Seagate ES.2
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte GTX 460 1GB SuperOverClocked
      • PSU:
      • NZXT Hale 90 750w
      • Case:
      • BitFenix Survivor + Bitfenix spectre LED fans, LG BluRay R/W optical drive
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Professional
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2414h, U2311h 1920x1080
      • Internet:
      • 200Mb/s Fibre and 4G wifi

    Re: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    Quote Originally Posted by ik9000 View Post
    Wasn't the original core architecture a spin off from the pentium M line, or have I garbled that Baldric-fashion?
    Quote Originally Posted by 3dcandy View Post
    I have a cunning plan....
    Quiet now Darling...

    I'm not going mad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_M
    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia
    The next generation of processors, codenamed Yonah, were based on the Enhanced Pentium M architecture, and released under the Intel Core brand, as Core Duo and Core Solo.

  6. #21
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    11,896
    Thanks
    665
    Thanked
    1,316 times in 1,121 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 33 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    The problem here is Intel is having to make relatively large chips on 10NM - if they had a "glued" design like AMD has,it would most likely be useable. I am kind of surprised with Intel having access to EMIB,etc they haven't moved to chiplets yet.
    Wouldn't stop the problem that Intel's 10nm doesn't clock high. Good for laptops where that isn't expected, but not for desktops.

    That and because the yield has sucked so badly at one point Intel not only halted their conversion of 14nm fabs to 10nm but supposedly converted one back to 14. The idea was to go straight to 7nm, so there never will be any volume in 10nm. But they promised the stock holders 10nm, and something was delivered.

    Quote Originally Posted by ik9000 View Post
    Wasn't the original core architecture a spin off from the pentium M line, or have I garbled that Baldric-fashion?
    It was. The Pentium M was also in turn a re-work of the Pentium 3. It was a Trigger's broom job where all the bits were re-worked to be better for mobile, but the inspiration was all P3. OFC the P3 was derivative of the P2 which was a cost reduction of the Pentium Pro. This stuff has lineage, and damn that Pentium Pro design was a good one.

    I still find it amazing that Intel's bold roadmap of the time was to push the P4 on to great heights that it was clearly never capable of, and when it all fell apart they got saved by a small team in Israel that had been tasked with knocking out a laptop chip.

  7. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    229
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked
    16 times in 13 posts

    Re: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    Pure marketing. Nothing more.

  8. #23
    Registered+
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    94
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post

    Re: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    "If you can't beat them, join them."
    Intel 14nm -> 11nm
    Intel 10nm -> 8nm
    Intel 7nm -> 5 or 6nm
    They're all made up numbers for several decades now compared to actual transistor dimensions & line sizes.

  9. #24
    RIP Peterb ik9000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,139
    Thanks
    1,640
    Thanked
    1,224 times in 919 posts
    • ik9000's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P7H55-M/USB3
      • CPU:
      • i7-870, Prolimatech Megahalems, 2x Akasa Apache 120mm
      • Memory:
      • 4x4GB Corsair Vengeance 2133 11-11-11-27
      • Storage:
      • 2x256GB Samsung 840-Pro, 1TB Seagate 7200.12, 1TB Seagate ES.2
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte GTX 460 1GB SuperOverClocked
      • PSU:
      • NZXT Hale 90 750w
      • Case:
      • BitFenix Survivor + Bitfenix spectre LED fans, LG BluRay R/W optical drive
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Professional
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2414h, U2311h 1920x1080
      • Internet:
      • 200Mb/s Fibre and 4G wifi

    Re: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    Quote Originally Posted by tygrus View Post
    "If you can't beat them, join them."
    Intel 14nm -> 11nm
    Intel 10nm -> 8nm
    Intel 7nm -> 5 or 6nm
    They're all made up numbers for several decades now compared to actual transistor dimensions & line sizes.
    No doubt all intel benchmark readings should also be doubled at the same time...

  10. #25
    Senior Member Pob255's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    The land of Brum
    Posts
    10,129
    Thanks
    604
    Thanked
    1,220 times in 1,121 posts
    • Pob255's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus M5A99X EVO
      • CPU:
      • FX8350 & CM Hyper 212+
      • Memory:
      • 4 x 2gb Corsair Vengence 1600mhz cas9
      • Storage:
      • 512gb samsung SSD +1tb Samsung HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EGVA GTX970
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic GX 650W
      • Case:
      • HAF 912+
      • Operating System:
      • W7 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • iiyama XB3270QS-B1 32" IPS 1440p

    Re: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    Not just intel, amd is just as bad.

    The problem is that benchmarks give you values with defined definitions. both TDP and NM node values have ether flexible or divergent definitions.

    NM Node size really is a meaningless number, a smaller node doesn't automatically make a chip good or even better, it makes it potentially better that's all
    In many ways intel was pushing "die shrink is an important feature that makes our cpu's better" for so many years esp during the core2 and early core i years that now they've hit a bottle neck where each die shrink is getting harder and more complex they've been stuck on their 14nm process and are trying to wring it for all they can their narrative of "why are the opposition still using that smelly big nm process not like our shiny new smaller one" is coming back to bite them in the bum, because we all took the message on board that cpu's have to have new smaller nm processes to be good.

    And please don't get me started on the utter steaming bullrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish that is TDP, at this time TDP from both intel and AMD is a 100% made up number for the purposes of marketing and nothing else.
    If you want to know the actual thermal output of a cpu look at the wattage draw, that's it, more electron movement = more heat, at a near 1:1 ratio.

  11. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Wonderful Warwick!
    Posts
    3,688
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    164 times in 137 posts

    Re: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    But the problem is Intel and AMD both use TDP to differentiate the product stack. I'd be closer to AMD's call right now but yup both aren't great.
    NM again - if they hadn't promised us 10nm for years probably wouldn't be such an issue
    Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!

  12. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,005
    Thanks
    146
    Thanked
    257 times in 186 posts

    Re: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    Quote Originally Posted by Pob255 View Post
    And please don't get me started on the utter steaming bullrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish that is TDP, at this time TDP from both intel and AMD is a 100% made up number for the purposes of marketing and nothing else.
    If you want to know the actual thermal output of a cpu look at the wattage draw, that's it, more electron movement = more heat, at a near 1:1 ratio.
    AMDs TDP is pretty close to the mark and honours it reasonably well when being measured.

  13. #28
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Posts
    29
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    2 times in 1 post

    Re: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    This feels like the start of a massive campaign of bullrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish by Intel. "Our 10 has fancy buttons so its really like a 7", "Our 8++++ should be compared to the 7 that TSMC made 3 years ago not the 5 that they're making now", "Yes AMD's processor is faster in every other way but if you stand on one leg and squint you'll see our CPU is almost 3% faster.. win for Intel.

  14. #29
    RIP Peterb ik9000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,139
    Thanks
    1,640
    Thanked
    1,224 times in 919 posts
    • ik9000's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P7H55-M/USB3
      • CPU:
      • i7-870, Prolimatech Megahalems, 2x Akasa Apache 120mm
      • Memory:
      • 4x4GB Corsair Vengeance 2133 11-11-11-27
      • Storage:
      • 2x256GB Samsung 840-Pro, 1TB Seagate 7200.12, 1TB Seagate ES.2
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte GTX 460 1GB SuperOverClocked
      • PSU:
      • NZXT Hale 90 750w
      • Case:
      • BitFenix Survivor + Bitfenix spectre LED fans, LG BluRay R/W optical drive
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Professional
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2414h, U2311h 1920x1080
      • Internet:
      • 200Mb/s Fibre and 4G wifi

    Re: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    Quote Originally Posted by maxopus View Post
    "Yes AMD's processor is faster in every other way but if you stand on one leg and squint you'll see our CPU is almost 3% faster.. in one benchmark only, of our choosing, that we made up to begin with => win for Intel.
    fixed that for you.

  15. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    252
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked
    16 times in 14 posts

    Re: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    "14nm? We've on 10nm! We've always been on 10nm! Never heard of this 14nm business, you must be mistaken."

  16. #31
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    36
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post

    Re: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post

    Some aspects yes, but the "good yields" vs "barely usable" is probably the key metric here. That and Intel's 10nm sucking for desktop performance (to be fair, TSMC 10nm was mobile only as well, you can't win them all).

    But hey, the computer industry has always had a fair dose of carefully chosen benchmarks
    Intel has shipped over 30 million Tiger Lake 10nm chips, according to their CEO, and recorded over $20B in free cash flow last year. They don't announce their yields, but something must have improved. AMD's FCF was less than $1B for the year.

    Intel's first 10nm desktop chips aren't coming until Alder Lake, in second half 2021, on the 10ESF process, so on what are you judging Intel's 10nm desktop performance?

  17. #32
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    36
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post

    Re: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    Quote Originally Posted by 3dcandy View Post

    Foveros tile is a 3d packaging form. Problem is with them still being kinda stuck on 14nm it doesn't help that much...
    Throwing transistors at an issue is a common way of doing it and Intel has continued that for at least a decade. But when you throw transistors at it on a poor node then packaging really doesn't mitigate the power draw and heat that ensues
    Lakefield is their first Foveros chip in production. It is 10nm ... shipped in q1 2020.

    The Xe-HPC/Ponte Vecchio chip is the coming big jump in that technology ... a 47 tile GPU. No 14nm on it either.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •