Intel might rename nodes like 10nm to better align with chip industry

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Mar 31, 2021.

  1. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    40,821
    Likes Received:
    9,211
    GPU:
    AMD | NVIDIA
  2. XenthorX

    XenthorX Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,687
    Likes Received:
    1,652
    GPU:
    3090 Gaming X Trio
    Oh come on... Coming next: "we're changing the way we monitor CPU power consumption and temperatures to align with industry standard"
     
  3. RealNC

    RealNC Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,318
    Likes Received:
    1,515
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 980 Ti FTW
    I don't even know what "nm" means anymore. If you look at the 7nm CPUs, the individual CPU components are listed as 20nm, 30nm, etc. Where's the 7nm coming from? Is this a CPU's equivalent of "1ms response time" and "1000000000000000000:1 contrast ratio"?
     
  4. Kaarme

    Kaarme Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,356
    Likes Received:
    984
    GPU:
    Sapphire 390
    Intel is a giant and they were producing 14nm chips before TSMC reached the equivalent level, so I could understand if Intel does feel a bit annoyed by looking worse due to the naming difference, now that TSMC is making 7 and 5nm chips routinely. That being said, Intel 10nm, the TSMC 7nm equivalent, has been a huge headache for Intel, so even if Intel does feel like it has been able to keep up with TSMC, the truth is that TSMC didn't have the problems Intel does. It's possible Intel won't have similar problems with its 7nm. Looking at all the problems the capacity lacking in the global chip manufacturing industry is causing, I sure do hope things will go more smoothly for Intel.

    All that being said, if Intel now changed the nomenclature of its 14nm to 10nm, and its 10nm or 7nm, it would look kind of pitiful.
     
    schmidtbag likes this.

  5. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,821
    Likes Received:
    2,243
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    That's funny, but, I get why Intel is doing this. Even here, there are people who think Intel's 10nm is worse than TSCM's 7nm. Sites that compare CPU stats aren't doing Intel any favors either. Intel has already been facing image problems for almost 4 years, and with the release of the 11900K, it hasn't got better. Using their competitor's way of measuring transistors is one way to seem like they're actually making competitive progress, especially when you consider how much people make such a fuss about it.
     
    JamesSneed, Ogreslayer and XenthorX like this.
  6. asturur

    asturur Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,063
    Likes Received:
    317
    GPU:
    Geforce Gtx 1080TI
    I think is the transistor gate not the whole component/transistor.
     
    Ogreslayer likes this.
  7. Agonist

    Agonist Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,113
    Likes Received:
    383
    GPU:
    XFX 5700XT Raw II
    Lol Intel. Trying to save face
     
  8. nevcairiel

    nevcairiel Master Guru

    Messages:
    749
    Likes Received:
    287
    GPU:
    3090
    It used to be the "minimum gate length" of a single transistor. But it has shifted into marketing more and more over the years, partly due to changes how the transitors are actually designed, partly, well, just for marketing.
    Roughly, 32nm was the last node where this measurement was somewhat accurate, as any newer processes diverged from it due to changes in the transistor design.
     
    Ogreslayer likes this.
  9. cucaulay malkin

    cucaulay malkin Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    728
    GPU:
    107001070
    nuclear velocity boost incoming.

    whatever they name it,no more of this backporting nonsense after rkl.no one needs performance increase that comes with 250w pl on a six core.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2021
  10. toyo

    toyo Master Guru

    Messages:
    387
    Likes Received:
    204
    GPU:
    Gigabyte 1070Ti 8G
    Applied postmodernism, at silicon level.
     

  11. fellix

    fellix Member Guru

    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    27
    GPU:
    KFA² GTX 1080 Ti
    After the 45nm node, the gate width lost its meaning as an universal metric across the different fabs. The industry should probably move to something of higher order and practical, like the size of a standard 6T SRAM cell.
     
    Fox2232 likes this.
  12. waltc3

    waltc3 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,257
    Likes Received:
    416
    GPU:
    AMD 50th Ann 5700XT
    Poor, misunderstood Intel...their notion of nm process is following right long with their notions of TDP and their "productivity" benchmarks...*cough*...;)
     
    Fox2232 likes this.
  13. Embra

    Embra Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,144
    Likes Received:
    344
    GPU:
    Vega 64 Nitro+LE
    There should be an industry standard all follow.
     
  14. Caesar

    Caesar Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,287
    Likes Received:
    484
    GPU:
    GTX 1070Ti Titanium
    To the untrained eye, Intel's new 10nm SuperFIN architecture sounds a lot less advanced than the TSMC 7nm process AMD uses on some of the best cpus, but nanometer numbers can be deceiving, because both have similar density.
     
  15. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,821
    Likes Received:
    2,243
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    I vote for transistors per square millimeter. Generally speaking the thing that the industry cares about is transistor density. Fitting more transistors in a smaller space either allows you to produce more working dies per-wafer, or, allows you to make bigger and more complex dies (which is a lot of the problem with the 11th gen CPUs, since the architecture was meant to be on a smaller node).

    Besides, a nanometer is so small that it isn't really easy to conceive. But when you account for how many thousands of transistors you could fit into a single square millimeter, that puts things into a more interesting perspective. At least to me it does.
     
    Fox2232 and HandR like this.

  16. Clouseau

    Clouseau Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,697
    Likes Received:
    398
    GPU:
    ZOTAC AMP RTX 3070
    Does this mean that win they say that 7nm is on track they are talking about the TSMC 5nm or 4? Those statements already adjusted?
     
  17. Venix

    Venix Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,630
    Likes Received:
    636
    GPU:
    Palit 1060 6gb
    Makes sense really. I can not fault em for that
     
  18. cucaulay malkin

    cucaulay malkin Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    728
    GPU:
    107001070
    tsmc should now rename theirs :D
     
  19. Neo Cyrus

    Neo Cyrus Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,802
    Likes Received:
    637
    GPU:
    Asus TUF 3080 OC
    I wouldn't put it past them, but in this extremely rare case Intel aren't lying through their teeth, and it is true. Their 10nm is sort of comparable to TSMC's 7nm.

    Edit - Typo.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2021
    XenthorX likes this.
  20. XenthorX

    XenthorX Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,687
    Likes Received:
    1,652
    GPU:
    3090 Gaming X Trio
    I know nothing about the topic at hand tbh, just a bit irritated that Intel hasn't managed to turn things over yet.
    8 cores pulling 300watts while AMD does 16cores pulling 220W, what's going on at Intel?!
     

Share This Page