Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jul 24, 2020.
correct me if i wrong but isnt intels 14nm equal to amd 7nm?
amd doesn't have a foundry
so is that yes or no to my question, cause read 7nm for amd is equal to 14nm intel dont know if true or not?
TMSC's 10nm was equivalent to intels 14nm
When was it last time intel did release official data about number of transistors in their products?
Intel 10 nm 100,760,000
EDIT: I believe that is the year 2018
Prior to that was 2014
Intel 14 nm 37,500,000
Could be pushed back a year++++.
That's taken from wiki. I know about it. But intel does not provide transistor counts for their chips for many years.
I don't get why the transistor count would matter when their architecture is completely different. The best way to compare is with the various feature sizes in which case Intel (10nm) does compete with TSMC (7nm non-euv) in some areas but it's not like it matters because if Intel can't ship a real processor on it, does it actually exist?
Its actually taken from Intel. Wiki uses it.
Yes, but it does not provide any correlation to actual products.
Intel's numbers: 14nm has around 37.3M transistors per square mm.
And 10nm has around 100.8M transistors per square mm.
Look at current 10nm vs 14nm 4C/8T CPU:
i7-6700(K) (14nm Skylake): 122mm^2
i3-10300 (14nm Comet Lake): ~125mm^2
i7-1065G7 (10nm Ice Lake): ~113mm^2 CPU
So, what's going on there?
You are comparing 14 nm desktop Skylake S / Comet Lake S (TDP 65 W) with ultra-mobile Ice Lake U (TDP 15 W).
TSMC says their 7 nm process allows either 20% more performance or 40% less power, with 1.6x higher density. So if you keep the same die size, you get about the same power with 20% better performance. They also use two different 7 nm processes for mobile and high-performance chips.
They shipped Ice Lake U, with Alder Lake S and Sapphire Rapids to follow next year.
Would you for once try to reply to what I am referring to? Really, you make so many strawmans, that I lost interest in discussing you.
So, you basically want to divert from fact that officially intel's 10nm should provide 2.7x higher transistor density than their 14nm by saying that for mobile chip they sacrifice it for sake of power efficiency.
While reality is that i7-1065G7 sacrifices clock to achieve given power target as its base clock is 1.3GHz. (And i3-10300 has base clock of 3.7GHz.)
i7-1065G7 has double the number of graphics EUs + whatever changes they needed for AVX512 support and an integrated thunderbolt 3 controller + updated IPU for more camera support and whatnot + the AI accelerator thing.
It's basically an SoC at this point and I don't think it's fair to compare it to a 6700K and die size. You'd need the transistor count.
Even then though, comparing to say an AMD processor is kind of pointless when AMD's design relies on lots of cache which is obviously more transistor dense.
I know - I have Ice Lake in my XPS - when I meant real, I meant desktop class processor I'd actually want to buy given the context of what most people are posting about in this thread.
IGP area in i7-1065G7 is ~34%. CPU cores take ~25% including. IMC takes ~4%. Rest is practically SA.
IGP area in i7-6700(K) is ~35%. CPU cores take ~30% including. IMC takes ~5.5%. Rest is practically SA.
And all those mobile chips have chipset sitting right next to it which has some 48mm^2.
- - - -
Let's take hypothesis that 2.7x transistor density is true even for this mobile chip. Then it uses around 2.5 times as many transistors as mentioned desktop chips. I do not see it as worth transistor investment. Do you? Would you not rather see 6C/12T in that package? If we took this particular die and added 2C/4T (new cores) to it, it would become just 12.5% bigger while providing 50% more CPU cores.
- - - -
But then you get back to intel's 2.7 times denser claim. Intel can claim that GPU got bigger which is reasonably true due to number of UEs many added features and complexity. That CPU cores now use twice as many transistors may be believed to some extent. Mobile SA can be bigger (in terms of transistors) for good reason. But what about IMC?
Taking die size and percentage: on 10nm IMC is around 4.5mm^2 while it takes 6.7mm^2 on 14nm. Does not really look much denser to me. Same way as those CPU cores are not much denser.
- - - -
And if we were to believe this 2.7 times density claim. Then CPU cores would now use: 28.25mm^2 instead of: 36.6mm^2 on 2.7 times denser manufacturing process.
That's really twice as many transistors per core. And again: "Where is benefit to end user?"
- - - -
From my point of view, intel is either wasting awful lot of transistors. Or their 2.7 times denser 10nm process over 14nm one is not exactly what they claim it to be.
= = = =
Anyway, your answer is much more to the point.
What does it draw correlation too?
3rd grade math would substitute for graduate courses in microprocessor design.
You know where the Ignore button is; I surely do.
Intel Corp. (INTC) is ordering its 6-nanometer (nm) chips to be manufactured by TSMC (TSM) for next year, according to a report from the Taiwan-based newspaper Commercial Times...
The Commercial Times report provides the first confirmation of Intel's "contingency plans" with a reported Intel order of 180,000 wafers from TSMC to produce its 6-nm chip. However, it was not clear who would be manufacturing the much delayed, 7-nm chip...