juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 17, 2014 2:29 pm wrote:
> tarlinian (tarlinian.delete@this.gmail.com) on August 16, 2014 1:56 pm wrote:
> > juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 16, 2014 12:01 pm wrote:
> > > Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on August 16, 2014 10:28 am wrote:
> > > > Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on August 16, 2014 9:56 am wrote:
> > > > > I wouldn't trust anything in that www.electronicsweekly.com story. (It lost all credibility
> > > > > when it went off on some strange tangent about providing Apple with an A57 variant.) BUT
> > > > > I think you're being too optimistic about Intel's 14nm. Let's read the
> > > > > Intel press release closely (ie like a lawyer). Here's what they say:
> > > > > "
> > > > > • The first systems based on the Intel® Core™ M processor will be on shelves for the
> > > > > holiday selling season followed by broader OEM availability in the first half of 2015.
> > > > > • Additional products based on the Broadwell microarchitecture and
> > > > > 14nm process technology will be introduced in the coming months.
> > > > > "
> > > > >
> > > > > So what will be available 1H15 is more Broadwell-Y parts --- ie the parts that may
> > > > > be of interest to Surface Pro 4 and similar devices, but are probably not of interest
> > > > > to even MacBook Air level devices, let alone larger laptops and desktops.
> > > > > REAL Broadwell devices get the very specific due date of "coming months" which doesn't
> > > > > indicate much confidence on the part of Intel as to when they might ship.
> > > > >
> > > > > Charlie at SemiAccurate has stated that dual-core parts will arrive in six months, and quad-core in eleven
> > > > > months. You can have whatever opinion you like about his accuracy, but everything Intel has said, HOW
> > > > > they have said it, and what they have NOT said, fits with such an (extremely delayed) schedule.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > While I don't disagree with any of that, foundries can call whatever they like "14nm" or "16nm" or "10nm".
> > > > There is no UK advertising standards group that will fine
> > > > them if they're stretching the truth. The process
> > > > name being the same or similar doesn't mean they're necessarily comparable to Intel's 14nm.
> > > >
> > > > The whole idea of saying "because Intel promises 14nm on date x" and "these foundries have promised
> > > > 16nm, 14nm and 10nm on these dates" tells you anything about who is ahead is ludicrous. Intel's
> > > > 14nm has been delayed, and may be further delayed for higher power Broadwell parts - but maybe it
> > > > was always planned to be skipped entirely. Maybe the rumor from a year or two ago that Intel would
> > > > not sell socketed Broadwell parts was true, but not for the reasons that concerned people.
> > > >
> > > > The one thing I saw that suggested foundries weren't so far behind Intel after all was
> > > > the density of Apple's A7 on Samsung's 28nm process, which was a lot closer to Intel's
> > > > 22nm density than their 28nm density (though granted comparing a mobile ARM SoC versus
> > > > a mobile x86 SoC based on transistors and die size is far from foolproof)
> > > >
> > > > But that doesn't mean that what Samsung calls "14nm" will be 4x as dense as what they call "28nm".
> > > > Based on what I've read that does at least appear to be true for Intel. And power and performance
> > > > are a whole other matter, as improving those will typically require sacrifices in density.
> > >
> > > Well what Intel decided to call 22nm is what rest of industry calls ~26nm. However, rest of industries
> > > have decided to redefine the nanometer and play with Intel to the same silly marketing game.
> > >
> > > But as you say the node name is irrelevant, what is relevant are its parameters. According
> > > to the ITRS, the key metric of progress is the M1 HP. Intel 14nm node has a M1 HP of 26nm.
> > > TSMC 16nm has a M1 HP of 32nm. Thus Intel 14nm has an advantage of about 23% over TSMC 16nm.
> > > That is about half node, which implies that Intel traditional lead has been reduced. It
> > > is expected that the lead will vanish at the 10nm node, somewhere in 2016--2017.
> >
> > Come on, I've been reading your posts and giving you the benefit of the doubt on microarchitecture,
> > but are you really going to play the silly node naming game as well? No one expects nodes to
> > be comparable across competitors. (But I will note that Intel didn't decide to arbitrarily call
> > 32/22 nm 28/20 nm. They freely admit that the same generation foundry processes have better
> > density. Each node has scaled quite well from the previous one. 14/16 nm will have no effective
> > shrink outside of what you can wring from having better performing devices.)
> >
>
> Even former Intel people agrees on that Intel relabeled nodes and reinvented the nanometer for marketing
> purposes. Hans (Chip architect) has explained this silly marketing game much better than I could do:
>
>

No, What TSMC/IBM/Samsung/GF said is:
>
> We call these processes 14nm / 16nm because:
> Intel deviated from the official ITRS process naming rules and Intel
> marketing/shareholders always abuse this against us to claim they
> are many, many years ahead.
>
> Indeed, based on BEOL density Intel's processes should have been called
> differently according to the official ITRS naming standards:
>
> Intel's 65nm should have been called 80nm instead.
> Intel's 45nm should have been called 55nm instead.
> Intel's 32nm should have been called 39nm instead.
>
> You can see this in the graph below:
>
> -The blue squares show the official metal 1 half pitches according to the ITRS.
> -The purple circles and squares are the actual BEOL metal 1 half pitches of Intel's processes.
>
> You can see that going from 90nm to 65nm Intel improved the BEOL MT1
> by only 5%. They did exactly the same then as TSMC/IBM/Samsung/GF
> are doing now.
>
> It is due to the ignorance of the general public, which has no knowledge
> of the official process naming rules, that TSMC/IBM/Samsung/GF are
> forced to deviate from the official naming rules in the same way as Intel
> did.

>
> > You're also ignoring the fact that no one has even announced ship dates for any 14/16 nm products. Until
> > now we've seen maybe 1 HVM 20 nm parts, the Qualcomm modem. No one other than Intel has started HVM of any
> > 14/16 nm parts. Forget even just one low power part like
> > Intel. TSMC claims risk production of 16 nm started
> > in late 2013. We aren't going to see any 16 nm parts in products until 2H 2015 at the earliest. That's a
> > 2 year delta. And you think that 10 nm is just going to show up the next year. The foundries might have
> > decided what their 10 nm process is going to look like by then, forget actually making anything.
>
> Broadwell-EP is expected for Q4 2015. Several ARM servers are expected for 2016, including AMD K12.
> Nobody will be announcing ship dates this early, but the products are expected for that time.

If you continue to believe that M1 half-pitch is all that matters when comparing process technologies, I don't suppose there's any point in discussing this with you. That might have been true 20 years ago when everyone's transistors were identical, wire delay was meaningless, leakage didn't matter and no one even bothered considering design rules, but it certainly isn't true now.