Quote from: Some random guy on December 17, 2020, 08:04:26
This article talks about 10 nm and mentions cannon lake? Wtf like y'all are so stuck on cannon lake and that debacle that you can't even analyze what is actually happening. I bet most of the people here don't even realize that the whole 14, 10, 7 nm debate is actually pointless, how can you actually talk about node process size when you don't even know what is happening? Just to make clear none of these processors are actually 14, 10 or 7 nm node if you look it's not anywhere near that also nobody considers gate, drain sizes and so on how can you talk about "node process" lithography when you don't even know what it's about? Don't even get me started on core quality when all these people out here are touting that more cores = better cpu, if that was the case AMD or ARM would have taken over a long time ago. Intel might be having a tough patch but y'all are out to lunch if you think a giant like that is just going to keel over and die.
Amazing stuff there. Just incredible. Let's get down to brass tacks:
1) The article mentions Cannon Lake because it was Intel's first product on their 10nm process, and now we have a better idea about just how terrible the yields were.
2) It's 2020 - literally everybody knows that node names don't directly represent the feature sizes, but they *do* represent relative progress for a given foundry. They're marketing names that allow you to discuss the actual manufacturing process being used - that's all.
3) If you want to talk "core quality", M1 and Zen 3 have something to say. Maybe listen?
4) Nobody's saying Intel are going to keel over and die. It's relevant to note how many times they've screwed the pooch in the last 2-3 years, though, and that they haven't any solid plans to stop doing so.