By: Maxwell (max.delete@this.a.com), July 27, 2021 2:34 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Andrey (andrey.semashev.delete@this.gmail.com) on July 27, 2021 12:33 pm wrote:
> Kester L (nobody.delete@this.nothing.com) on July 27, 2021 8:29 am wrote:
> > https://www.anandtech.com/show/16823/intel-accelerated-offensive-process-roadmap-updates-to-10nm-7nm-4nm-3nm-20a-18a-packaging-foundry-emib-foveros
> >
> > Intel finally announced their upcoming roadmap and finally renamed
> > their nodes to match TSMC and Samsung's marketing numbers.
>
> This is stupid and wasted opportunity. They could have dropped the whole size-related connotation
> in the process names, which has no relation to reality anyway, and go with whatever marketing naming
> scheme they wanted. Instead they just renamed their nodes to one step ahead to "look good" compared
> to TSMC. In reality it doesn't make Intel look good, it makes it look desperate.
>
In olden times they used a process family name followed by a number, e.g. HMOS II.
Max
> Kester L (nobody.delete@this.nothing.com) on July 27, 2021 8:29 am wrote:
> > https://www.anandtech.com/show/16823/intel-accelerated-offensive-process-roadmap-updates-to-10nm-7nm-4nm-3nm-20a-18a-packaging-foundry-emib-foveros
> >
> > Intel finally announced their upcoming roadmap and finally renamed
> > their nodes to match TSMC and Samsung's marketing numbers.
>
> This is stupid and wasted opportunity. They could have dropped the whole size-related connotation
> in the process names, which has no relation to reality anyway, and go with whatever marketing naming
> scheme they wanted. Instead they just renamed their nodes to one step ahead to "look good" compared
> to TSMC. In reality it doesn't make Intel look good, it makes it look desperate.
>
In olden times they used a process family name followed by a number, e.g. HMOS II.
Max
