Wednesday, March 31st 2021
Intel Could Rename its Semiconductor Nodes to Catch Up with the Industry
In the past few years, Intel has struggled a lot with its semiconductor manufacturing. Starting from the 10 nm fiasco, the company delayed the new node for years and years, making it seem like it is never going to get delivered. The node was believed to be so advanced that it was unexpectedly hard to manufacture, giving the company more problems. Low yields have been present for a long time, and it is only recently that Intel has started shipping its 10 nm products. However, its competitor, TSMC, has been pumping out nodes at an amazing rate. At the time of writing, the Taiwanese giant is producing the 5 nm node, with a 4 nm node on the way.
So to remain competitive, Intel would need to apply a new tactic. The company has a 7 nm node in the works for 2023 when TSMC will switch to the 3 nm+ nodes. That represents a marketing problem, where the node naming convention is making Intel inferior to its competitors. To fix that, the company will likely start node renaming and give its nodes new names, that are corresponding to the industry naming conventions. We still have no information how will the new names look like, or if Intel will do it in the first place, so take this with a grain of salt.
Source:
Oregon Live
So to remain competitive, Intel would need to apply a new tactic. The company has a 7 nm node in the works for 2023 when TSMC will switch to the 3 nm+ nodes. That represents a marketing problem, where the node naming convention is making Intel inferior to its competitors. To fix that, the company will likely start node renaming and give its nodes new names, that are corresponding to the industry naming conventions. We still have no information how will the new names look like, or if Intel will do it in the first place, so take this with a grain of salt.
60 Comments on Intel Could Rename its Semiconductor Nodes to Catch Up with the Industry
If I remember correctly 1 micrometer was around the time of 386.
Intel did develop 14nm to the point where power consumption was down 50%. However, the genuinity you mention is not just a 'performance and numbers' speak.
I am not EE and not attune to the stuff, but there is a p/w chart that take on the challenges of SRAM by comparing cell transistor count against power consumption. I forgot which is 5-6-7T, or 8T for that matter, but if you notice the density cost, there are some efficiency measures that just aren't possible with a fixed transistor budget. The power gradient makes large SRAM banks unavailable with a former process node. That is just the way it is.
What AMD did was to enhance the pallette of tools their designers could use. They are not magicians.
Just because one is 8T and the other is 5T does not negate just how crazy that is to be able to compete on the technologic front and the performance front on a relegated node. People - don't take it for granted. These people don't just tape out better, or worse layouts. There is no default set like ARM provides.
It is like Caesar 3. You just have to intersperse 'just enough' desirability(Tr/mm²) venues. Just how many years do they have to deliberate before an initial design to its tape-out & engineering sample testing again?
PS: no blunder in a 100,000 workforce company on a 7 years long project is not a failure.
Failure is if it no longer clocks as high. Heat on the other hand, is a quite natural when you are spacing the design layout closer than before.
Seriously, you can't make up for a shortfall in process technology by just renaming it. It's absurd.
Just look carefully at the wording of that article. It's a bit subtle, but definitely a spoof. Good one, too.