David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on January 20, 2018 12:26 pm wrote:
> David Hess (davidwhess.delete@this.gmail.com) on January 15, 2018 5:29 pm wrote:
[snip]
>> I always wondered if features introduced in more advanced processes were
>> backported to larger feature sizes. Now I know. Thanks David.
>
> I think that's a relatively new phenomenon at Intel. Historically, they made all
> their money on the newest process over a 2-3 year window. As that window stretches,
> its more important to improve the process including using new techniques.

Intel's foundry aspirations provide obvious motivations for feature backporting (processes are longer lived with a foundry and more diverse targets can make different feature mixes worthwhile) and it seems plausible that the increase in diversity in Intel's internal products (and seeming aspirations in this direction) may also justify some backporting particularly with the increase in multi-die integration.

Side note: I am a little curious how Intel managed older process use as integration made chipsets smaller.