By: Groo (charlie.delete@this.semiaccurate.com), November 2, 2020 2:31 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on November 2, 2020 1:51 pm wrote:
> Perhaps, but Intel would still have had to execute. No one has ever suggested lack of
> investment was the reason for Intel's failure with 10nm.
Err... I did. And I explained the reasons why this abjectly idiotic decision was made, explained the effects, and more. That said it is below the subscription line so clickers beware.
https://www.semiaccurate.com/2018/08/02/intel-guts-10nm-to-get-it-out-the-door/
-Charlie
> Perhaps, but Intel would still have had to execute. No one has ever suggested lack of
> investment was the reason for Intel's failure with 10nm.
Err... I did. And I explained the reasons why this abjectly idiotic decision was made, explained the effects, and more. That said it is below the subscription line so clickers beware.
https://www.semiaccurate.com/2018/08/02/intel-guts-10nm-to-get-it-out-the-door/
-Charlie
