By: Anon (no.delete@this.spam.com),
Room: Moderated Discussions
Heikki Kultala (hkultala.delete@this.iki.fi) on November 11, 2020 5:39 am wrote:
> Anon (no.delete@this.spam.com) on November 11, 2020 3:59 am wrote:
> > Don't take me wrong, Apple did a very impressive job, but, when comparing to Intel, it is fair to say
> > that, for the first time in history, Intel is 3 fucking full nodes behind in manufactoring process.
>
> No. Intel is only 3 "full nodes" behind in manufacturing node MARKETING NAMES.
>
> TSMC "5nm" is only about 2.4x as dense as Intels "14nm" (SRAM cell size ~0.05 um^2 vs ~0.021 um^2.).
>
> log2(2.24) = 1.26
>
>
> So intel is only 1.26 full nods behind, not "3 full noes behind".
Look at the actual product, AMD have 64 cores and 256MB LL$ vs Intel's 28 cores and 38.5MB, that alone is more than one full node, then Apple is another full node further at 5nm.
Doesn't matter what excuses Intel uses, their mfg is hopeless.
> Anon (no.delete@this.spam.com) on November 11, 2020 3:59 am wrote:
> > Don't take me wrong, Apple did a very impressive job, but, when comparing to Intel, it is fair to say
> > that, for the first time in history, Intel is 3 fucking full nodes behind in manufactoring process.
>
> No. Intel is only 3 "full nodes" behind in manufacturing node MARKETING NAMES.
>
> TSMC "5nm" is only about 2.4x as dense as Intels "14nm" (SRAM cell size ~0.05 um^2 vs ~0.021 um^2.).
>
> log2(2.24) = 1.26
>
>
> So intel is only 1.26 full nods behind, not "3 full noes behind".
Look at the actual product, AMD have 64 cores and 256MB LL$ vs Intel's 28 cores and 38.5MB, that alone is more than one full node, then Apple is another full node further at 5nm.
Doesn't matter what excuses Intel uses, their mfg is hopeless.


