By: Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar), November 3, 2020 9:21 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Groo (charlie.delete@this.semiaccurate.com) on November 2, 2020 2:31 pm wrote:
> 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
Did you suggest in the paywall portion of that article that Intel's 10nm would have succeed if they had only invested more money in it?
> 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
Did you suggest in the paywall portion of that article that Intel's 10nm would have succeed if they had only invested more money in it?