Intel Ditches Nanometers, Renames 10nm to 7 & 7nm to 4
video description
Date: 2021-08-04
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Josua
to be honest, and may god forgive me for saying this, I'm a fan of this renaming node move. Why? Because it bring Intel's node closer to what they should've been named in the first place. Intel's density number for a 10nm node is massive, to the point it you can just call them 7nm, and nobody would be mad about it (except some fanboys apparently). so Intel is doing what they should have done from the beginning.
And for AMD fans, this benefits you as well. The smaller nm number intel gets, the more pressure AMD and TSMC got to make more and more node advancements. AMD for zen3 sits comfortable in 7nm because they know intel isn't catching up anytime soon. but imagine if Intel named their 10nm fab Intel 7 from the start. maybe AMD wouldn't be so comfortable leaving their zen3 CPUs at TSMC 7N, and may opt to go TSMC's 6nm to get lower number than Intel.
So yeah, this move benefits everyone, and will reheat the competition once more.
reply
to be honest, and may god forgive me for saying this, I'm a fan of this renaming node move. Why? Because it bring Intel's node closer to what they should've been named in the first place. Intel's density number for a 10nm node is massive, to the point it you can just call them 7nm, and nobody would be mad about it (except some fanboys apparently). so Intel is doing what they should have done from the beginning.
And for AMD fans, this benefits you as well. The smaller nm number intel gets, the more pressure AMD and TSMC got to make more and more node advancements. AMD for zen3 sits comfortable in 7nm because they know intel isn't catching up anytime soon. but imagine if Intel named their 10nm fab Intel 7 from the start. maybe AMD wouldn't be so comfortable leaving their zen3 CPUs at TSMC 7N, and may opt to go TSMC's 6nm to get lower number than Intel.
So yeah, this move benefits everyone, and will reheat the competition once more.
reply
Kyzyl
13:02 well, when it comes to road bike racing, if your within 20-30 feet behind the cyclist in front of you, you cut down wind resistance by up to 20-30%. This may not sound like much, but believe me when I say it s huge especially when going 25+ MPH. The faster you go, the more important drafting behind someone is. It s the easiest way to win a race because you do much less work and can go even faster than the person in front of you up until you pass them of course. Aerodynamics is critical in road bike racing. But i don t think Intel actually knew what they were talking about when they mentioned this. Just thought I d share what I know!
-I used to work for specialized bicycle company who specifically works with McLaren Racing (yes. The car company) and developed their own wind tunnel. Something no other bicycle company in the USA has (at least at the time)
reply
13:02 well, when it comes to road bike racing, if your within 20-30 feet behind the cyclist in front of you, you cut down wind resistance by up to 20-30%. This may not sound like much, but believe me when I say it s huge especially when going 25+ MPH. The faster you go, the more important drafting behind someone is. It s the easiest way to win a race because you do much less work and can go even faster than the person in front of you up until you pass them of course. Aerodynamics is critical in road bike racing. But i don t think Intel actually knew what they were talking about when they mentioned this. Just thought I d share what I know!
-I used to work for specialized bicycle company who specifically works with McLaren Racing (yes. The car company) and developed their own wind tunnel. Something no other bicycle company in the USA has (at least at the time)
reply
Caipa
Going by numbers but stating the lower the better, they have already kneecapped themselves.
They can reach 1 maybe 0 , but i can already see the joke comparing chip number to value.
They could have gone with stating higher number higer - power (calulation wise) - More Importantly - They'd have decoupled themselves from AMD who keeps mainly pushing miniaturization size numbers. If you truly want to stop the pointless numbers to compare to competitor stop using the name numbers and focus. Flip the board? How to make a better internal naming scheme for consumers? I haven't thought yet on it, but don't compare apples to oranges (kinda), stay with your oranges ignore the others ones apples.
reply
Going by numbers but stating the lower the better, they have already kneecapped themselves.
They can reach 1 maybe 0 , but i can already see the joke comparing chip number to value.
They could have gone with stating higher number higer - power (calulation wise) - More Importantly - They'd have decoupled themselves from AMD who keeps mainly pushing miniaturization size numbers. If you truly want to stop the pointless numbers to compare to competitor stop using the name numbers and focus. Flip the board? How to make a better internal naming scheme for consumers? I haven't thought yet on it, but don't compare apples to oranges (kinda), stay with your oranges ignore the others ones apples.
reply
David
What about a metric like average number of logic gate inputs per cubic micro meter. It addresses the 3D nature of newer chips, allows for logic gates to have more than 2 inputs, takes in to account distance between gates, doesn't care if it is a single 'node' as a gate vs separate transistors, and should provide direct correlation between performance per watt and amount of silicon (aka cost). It should also be able to make it's way over to quantum computing when that is more popular.
reply
What about a metric like average number of logic gate inputs per cubic micro meter. It addresses the 3D nature of newer chips, allows for logic gates to have more than 2 inputs, takes in to account distance between gates, doesn't care if it is a single 'node' as a gate vs separate transistors, and should provide direct correlation between performance per watt and amount of silicon (aka cost). It should also be able to make it's way over to quantum computing when that is more popular.
reply
Kyle
Steve drafting in cycling is almost like having your bike physically tied to the one in front, but only if you tied it with a shitty bungee cord that breaks if the guy in front of you goes too fast.
This analogy either means:
1) Intel is comfortably happy with second place(which they should be, doubtless even 3rd or 4th in this cycling race is making bank)
or
2) Intel is letting a sprinter's gap open up to try and pass their competition(yeah I doubt they meant this one)
reply
Steve drafting in cycling is almost like having your bike physically tied to the one in front, but only if you tied it with a shitty bungee cord that breaks if the guy in front of you goes too fast.
This analogy either means:
1) Intel is comfortably happy with second place(which they should be, doubtless even 3rd or 4th in this cycling race is making bank)
or
2) Intel is letting a sprinter's gap open up to try and pass their competition(yeah I doubt they meant this one)
reply
Observationist
Translation: Intel has now figured out that they are so far behind AMD that Intel's next best strategy is to simply LIE about Intel's substrate process dimensions. In other words, Intel has decided that with all its years of falling behind looming before itself, that the solution is to simply obfuscate around the obvious, rather than figuring out how to implement something similar to TSMC's 7nm, 5nm, and 2nm, chips.
reply
Translation: Intel has now figured out that they are so far behind AMD that Intel's next best strategy is to simply LIE about Intel's substrate process dimensions. In other words, Intel has decided that with all its years of falling behind looming before itself, that the solution is to simply obfuscate around the obvious, rather than figuring out how to implement something similar to TSMC's 7nm, 5nm, and 2nm, chips.
reply
Johann
the numbers mean nothing, the only meaningful numbers are power efficiency numbers, power efficiency while in standby, while on idle, and the ultimate efficiency per metric of processor work
And from what I can see, TSMC's 7nm is more efficient in all of these ways than tiger lake
so the pre-existing nomenclature kind of aligns well with process node efficiencies
reply
the numbers mean nothing, the only meaningful numbers are power efficiency numbers, power efficiency while in standby, while on idle, and the ultimate efficiency per metric of processor work
And from what I can see, TSMC's 7nm is more efficient in all of these ways than tiger lake
so the pre-existing nomenclature kind of aligns well with process node efficiencies
reply
Zonker
I'm ashamed I still have an Intel rig. I'll give up a few FPS for a better system overall. The problem isn't the change, it's what numbers they're changing them too... they want to manipulate and that just sucks. No respect for you, Intel. This is why my AMD stock went from 75 to 110.
reply
I'm ashamed I still have an Intel rig. I'll give up a few FPS for a better system overall. The problem isn't the change, it's what numbers they're changing them too... they want to manipulate and that just sucks. No respect for you, Intel. This is why my AMD stock went from 75 to 110.
reply
Parasec
Maybe i missed it, but why was there no mention if transistor density? That would have been the perfect number go switch to since it actually means something.
Also the bike analogie was refering to wake. Doesn't make any sense either but didn't sound like you quite catched that.
reply
Maybe i missed it, but why was there no mention if transistor density? That would have been the perfect number go switch to since it actually means something.
Also the bike analogie was refering to wake. Doesn't make any sense either but didn't sound like you quite catched that.
reply
Dave
Each time I hear 'Foveros' mentioned it reminds me of Sigma's 'Foveon' camera sensor from the mid-2000s. That didn't do so great and had a lot of marketing spin too. it was interesting from a technical point of view and (maybe) had unrealised potential.
reply
Each time I hear 'Foveros' mentioned it reminds me of Sigma's 'Foveon' camera sensor from the mid-2000s. That didn't do so great and had a lot of marketing spin too. it was interesting from a technical point of view and (maybe) had unrealised potential.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
