TSMC announces 6nm process: the intermediate step between 5 and 7 nm

This is very smart on TSMC's part. This is exactly why they are ahead of Intel now. As these shrinks get harder and harder to achieve doing iterative processes instead of a revolutionary process like Intel was doing with 10nm which was more dense than even TSMC's 7nm looks like the way to go.

 

It's just rebranded 7FF++. The same way they did with 12FF that was rebranded 16FF++. And the same way Samsung did with 11LPP (14LP++++) and 8LPP (10LP+++). Or GloFo with 12LP, which is rebranded 14LP+, which is 14LP++++, including Samsung 14LPP (14LP+)

And they are not really ahead of Intel. Intel 10+ is denser. Samsung 7LPP (7LP+) that goes mass production later this year is even more denser.

 

False. Look at nVidia's 16nm vs. 12nm chips. They both have between 23~25M transistors per mm^2. But then look at power draw per transistor, per clock.
GTX 1080Ti and RTX 2080Ti have practically same boost clock, and same TDP. But RTX2080Ti does that with almost 60% more transistors.
Or take that GTX 1080Ti against RTX 2070... almost same transistor count, same performance per transistor, And RTX 2070 eats good 30% less power.
nVidia could have likely go for higher transistor density instead of going for power efficiency... and enabling even bigger GPUs... Instead, they went with power efficiency and clock as they usually do.

And as written in article 7 to 6 is supposed to enable 20% area saving, that's not small thing as that can be traded for other properties.
- - - -
As for that intel being ahead. Where? I do not own intel's "Superior" 10nm chip. Very few people do and they seem to be unhappy. While there are actually dozens of different 7nm products people can buy, and buy in volumes.
- - - -
notebookcheck's review of that intel's 10nm thingy was hilarious. Especially since they historically used to ignore AMD's APUs. If someone like that tells that they are worse than older generation...

 

Nvidia is fabless company. It doesn't have own 16 and 12 nm. They hire TSMC for that. But, they have a bit optimised for Nvidia process 12FFN (FinFet Nvidia). Density and effectiveness varies between generation variations. It's not always same. It could be all up to +/-20% each different directions. 12FF, 11LPP, 8LPP, 12LP, 14++ are all just variations of 16FF, 14LP, 10LP etc.While 5FF is a new process that is over 70% denser. Each generation is usually 100% density improvement.

 

You can say that Intels 10nm is denser all day long, which is all fine and dandy. No arguments there, it's great that it's denser.

......

But what's the point if it doesn't work? Or, what's the point if it doesn't improve....anything? Speed, power consumption, heat, etc.?

Intels 10nm may be "denser" but it is not "superior" because of that, if Intel decided right now to use TSMC's 7nm and put out a brand new line, full line from top to bottom CPUs, we'd see intel likely improve their current architecture a decent amount, in heat, power consumption, and potentially performance.

So.......what exactly is the point of continually stating that Intels 10nm is denser then 7nm, implying that it's a good thing, if it doesn't....bring anything good? And before you say "well it will!" no no no, i'm not interested in theoretical, we are here, now, with TSMCs working, and seemingly efficient, 7nm process, and we KNOW from previous release of intels 10nm that it is not beneficial over their 14nm. What we DON'T know is if that will ever change, or if they will skip over 10nm to their next process (my bet) for mainstream anything and keep their 10nm parts in the background.

So again, what's the point? Until Intel releases something on their 10nm that actually proves all the work they have done is worth it in the end, what is the point, right NOW, in talking about intels 10nm being..."superior" to TSMCs 7nm?

 

I didn't say anything about being superior. Are you sure you replying to me? I only said that TSMC and Samsung rebranding their refreshes, but they still have multiple +++ just like Intel.

 

This states intels process is superior, direct quote from above. Again, its not "incorrect", its just not useful either.