Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 9 May 2019.
Let's get 10mn out the gate first, guys.
And finally 10nm+++ in 2022.
while still manufacturing 10nm +++-+-+++-+
They could just do what the rest of the industry does, and rename process refinements to lower numbers each time around. 14nm+ becomes 12nm, 14nm++ becomes 10nm, 14nm+++ becomes 8nm, 14nm++++ becomes 6nm (hey, we have a lower number now so must be better!), etc. Because clearly that tactic works just fine when it comes to marketing. Nobody cares about what results a process actually achieves in practice (and the very low number of apples-to-apples same-die-different-process direct comaprisons makes this hard to create layman explanations), the number is lower so it must be better!
I thought Intel was three years late with 10nm, but the article says they delivered 6 years early.
Believe it when i see it.
Hah! Yes, one of those numbers is wrong. Guess which one and win a prize!*
* Offer not valid on a day ending in a "Y".
Mais aujourd'hui est jeudi.
Ironically it was Intel who taught the public to expect regular shrinks in the first place, but no point for them to jump back on the smaller number bandwagon now as the new marketing strategy has already started: "my EUV works better than your EUV" is going to be the new kid on the block.
Are you sure you don't mean
Separate names with a comma.