The 22nm to foundry FinFET delta is 3.5 years, maybe 3 if Samsung is now indeed in HVM. The delta between 14nm and their 10nm node is late 2014 -> late 2018 = 4 years. Worst-case, it will remain the same.
Exactly. On 22 nm Intel had a larger process tech lead than on 14 nm. Hence their lead is shrinking.
Intel haters will naturally spin things to make Intel be shown in the worst possible light.
As I said, read the post I referred to and you'll find what you're looking for. Also, please drop your usual insults.
You are drawing a trend line from a such a small set of data because...?Exactly. On 22 nm Intel had a larger process tech lead than on 14 nm. Hence their lead is shrinking.
We need people to debunk misinformation, regardless of brand.It's good that we have people like you who can defend Intel and set the record straight. Without you we might actually believe all these clearly false and made up reports about Broadwell being delayed and performing poorly. Everyone knows, or should know, that Intel is years or even decades ahead of the competition.
Thank you, Phynaz.
I already debunked your misinformation, yet you continue to post it.
You are drawing a trend line from a such a small set of data because...?
We need people to debunk misinformation, regardless of brand.
I'd be willing to bet that Cherry Trail is significantly denser than Core M.
But even thats still not enough, and for Core M Intel went so far as to give Broadwell-Y its own die and design a low-power optimized version of their 14nm process just for it. This variant is designed to further reduce power consumption by optimizing the resulting transistors for lower power, lower voltage, lower clockspeed operation. By doing this Intel was able to further reduce power consumption in all of the major areas over what would be a traditional 14nm Intel process.
A post about random company (insert AMD, Nvidia, Samsung, ARM, IBM, ect), one that puts it in a reasonable good light and the brigade arrives to troll as usual
Core M is already on the SoC process:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8355/intel-broadwell-architecture-preview/4
Regular Broadwell will be less dense than Broadwell-Y.
Nothing. The point I was making wasn't too difficult to understand though, and somehow you seem to have missed it.What exactly may I ask was debunked by this comment?
http://intelstudios.edgesuite.net/im/2013/pdf/2013_IM_Holt.pdf
Page 21. It isn't just black and white. There is:
1. High Perf CPU
2. Standard SoC
3. High Density SoC
4. Ultra High Density SoC
I'd guess that a Core core for tablets that must go up to 2.6GHz is built on the Standard SoC process. *snip*
What exactly may I ask was debunked by this comment?
"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phynaz View Post
Intel haters will naturally spin things to make Intel be shown in the worst possible light.
"
It appears to me to be just a divisive and inflammatory comment. You and him seem to have a pro-Intel agenda while also having little interest in any topic that cant be turned into a circus of personal attacks and bashing of Samsung or whomever it is that you've pitched opposite your favorite brand. It's totally cool to pick favorites but please don't dilute a discussion with totally irrelevant meta callouts.
Back OT: After now realizing that Samsung already has 20nm in phones I suppose 14nm in the S6 is next. I hope to see a comparison between 14nm Airmont and 14nm Exynos. Maybe 14nm A9 next September, who knows.
If I'm making personal attacks you should report them to the mods for appropriate action.
Samsung is no where close to mass production.
Apple, Qualcomm, and apparently AMD, have gathered exclusivity for 16nm FinFET Turbo.
I think its far more useful to point out what a shill you are.
And I agree III-V, shills like you and Phynaz ruim threads like this. Sad, really
ahh on what asumptions ? Its not like ss is your primary source
You could easily verify for yourself by simply visiting any of the logic fabs that are supposed to be terribly busy right now...but if you won't or can't do that then you can take my word for it that they aren't very busy.
Barring seeing the proof for yourself, you could look to the fact that Samsung's existing 20nm production is so limited in volume and wafer starts that it is currently solely limited to internal customers and no fab customers are getting a single 20nm wafer of production...that doesn't exactly telegraph "we are ramping 14nm to HVM" now does it?
Samsung is no where close to mass production.
Apple, Qualcomm, and apparently AMD, have gathered exclusivity for 16nm FinFET Turbo.
Well i have no problems taking your word for it. I just prefer argument not only statements.
And indeed the ss 20nm on the market is extremely low volume seen from here. Eg. Their high end tabs doesnt even have the new a57.
Now it might change for 14nm but it seems to me ss is more intersted in getting cheap solutions from other suppliers. And whatever pr or pressure is needed to do that they will do.
I think its far more useful to point out what a shill you are.
And I agree III-V, shills like you and Phynaz ruim threads like this. Sad, really
The average transistor in Core M takes about (82e12/1.3e9) =
63079 nm^2 which is 17.5 times the minimum FinFet cell size of
3600 nm^2
You've just divided the area of the die by the number of transistors. Are you saying that the entire surface of the die is composed of nothing except transistors?
This is an honest question: I know very little about the actual manufacturing of processors.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) will hold its annual supply chain management forum on December 4, and is expected to reveal the latest developments on its 16nm and 10nm node technologies at the event.
Avago Technologies, Freescale, LG Electronics, MediaTek, Nvidia, Renesas Electronics and Xilinx are among the early adopters of TSMC's 16nm FinFET process, the foundry disclosed