Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 39

Thread: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

  1. #1
    HEXUS.admin
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    31,224
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    2,003 times in 709 posts

    Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    Insiders say Intel will update numbering convention to "match the industry standard."
    Read more.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,101
    Thanks
    158
    Thanked
    268 times in 194 posts

    Re: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    Great, so when are they going to change their TDP measurements?

  3. Received thanks from:

    Output (31-03-2021),Sumanji (31-03-2021)

  4. #3
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    30,428
    Thanks
    1,726
    Thanked
    3,196 times in 2,580 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2311H
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    So we can look forward to 70 and 60nm products can we? Hmm I don't think so.

  5. #4
    Intelvidia Vanguard CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    31,024
    Thanks
    3,611
    Thanked
    4,955 times in 3,828 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    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.
    https://t6.rbxcdn.com/8d3e07528aae38af2cb81bdfa2a712e3

    I might not be serious.

  6. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Stafford
    Posts
    111
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    2 times in 2 posts
    • ultrasbm's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS TUF
      • CPU:
      • Ryzen 7 5800x
      • Memory:
      • 64Gb DDR4-3600
      • Storage:
      • 1Tb WD Black PCIe NVMe SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia RTX3090 FE
      • PSU:
      • Corsair 800watt
      • Case:
      • IN WIN 909
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Enterprise x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2x Dell 32" Curved 1440p
      • Internet:
      • 540Mbps Virgin

    Re: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    If they made decent products that didn't single handedly cause global warming, then people wouldn't give two poops about their transistor density.

  7. #6
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,004
    Thanks
    671
    Thanked
    1,330 times in 1,132 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
    ,and their 10NM process node is closer to TSMC 7NM in certain aspects.
    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

  8. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    161
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked
    10 times in 8 posts

    Re: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    Quote Originally Posted by ultrasbm View Post
    If they made decent products that didn't single handedly cause global warming, then people wouldn't give two poops about their transistor density.
    This genuinely made me laugh!

  9. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    11,397
    Thanks
    735
    Thanked
    436 times in 304 posts

    Re: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    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....

    Ho hum...

  10. #9
    Long member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,245
    Thanks
    67
    Thanked
    377 times in 270 posts
    • philehidiot's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Father's bored
      • CPU:
      • Cockroach brain V0.1
      • Memory:
      • Innebriated, unwritten
      • Storage:
      • Big Yellow Self Storage
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Semi chewed Crayola Mega Pack
      • PSU:
      • 20KW single phase direct grid supply
      • Case:
      • Closed, Open, Cold
      • Operating System:
      • Cockroach
      • Monitor(s):
      • The mental health nurses
      • Internet:
      • Please.

    Re: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    Quote Originally Posted by bae85 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ultrasbm View Post
    If they made decent products that didn't single handedly cause global warming, then people wouldn't give two poops about their transistor density.
    This genuinely made me laugh!
    Hmm, this gives me an idea for my response to this press release:

    You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words.... how DARE you.

  11. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Wonderful Warwick!
    Posts
    3,774
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    166 times in 139 posts

    Re: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    Timing is everything
    Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!

  12. #11
    Intelvidia Vanguard CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    31,024
    Thanks
    3,611
    Thanked
    4,955 times in 3,828 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    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
    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.
    https://t6.rbxcdn.com/8d3e07528aae38af2cb81bdfa2a712e3

    I might not be serious.

  13. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    218
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    15 times in 13 posts

    Re: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    Fishlets maybe , everything Intel does of late is fishy.

  14. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,358
    Thanks
    476
    Thanked
    436 times in 302 posts

    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.
    Haven't they announced they're planning to do that, is it called foverous or something, not sure if that relates to desktop, mobile, or server though. I sort of lost interest in what Intel was doing a decade or so ago when they just kept churning out the same basic 'Core' design from 2006.

  15. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    161
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked
    10 times in 8 posts

    Re: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    Quote Originally Posted by Tabbykatze View Post
    Great, so when are they going to change their TDP measurements?
    Why would they do that when they can keep milking their fanboys?

  16. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Wonderful Warwick!
    Posts
    3,774
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    166 times in 139 posts

    Re: Intel considering nanometer numerals adjustment

    Quote Originally Posted by Corky34 View Post
    Haven't they announced they're planning to do that, is it called foverous or something, not sure if that relates to desktop, mobile, or server though. I sort of lost interest in what Intel was doing a decade or so ago when they just kept churning out the same basic 'Core' design from 2006.
    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
    Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!

  17. #16
    RIP Peterb ik9000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,185
    Thanks
    1,645
    Thanked
    1,232 times in 926 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 Corky34 View Post
    Haven't they announced they're planning to do that, is it called foverous or something, not sure if that relates to desktop, mobile, or server though. I sort of lost interest in what Intel was doing a decade or so ago when they just kept churning out the same basic 'Core' design from 2006.
    Wasn't the original core architecture a spin off from the pentium M line, or have I garbled that Baldric-fashion?

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •