Intel Could Rename its Semiconductor Nodes to Catch Up with the Industry

[gsvelto]

Nah, it's still loosely related to the smallest feature size but changing the name of your node in hope that this will somehow make people like your products more is hilarious.

No, the node names are completely made up these days, they have absolutely no relationship with the smallest feature size or the design rules for the matter. The last node that had a name still (vaguely) related to the feature size was Intel's 32nm which had a gate length of 30nm. All node names after that - both from Intel and merchant foundries - are basically marketing names.

 

[Vayra86]

This. Basically intel was the only one using common sense node metrics, and it made them sound way more behind than they were (dont get me wrong, they ARE behind, but everyone else is making up numbers that really don't match reality so it's pretty much only fair intel finally can do the same).

Dunno, I think that going along with 'the rest' in twisting the truth, actually is a complete and utter loss of a moral high ground in business and eventually a race to the bottom. Intel is now the same filth in every possible way. Their 10nm being what it was, was a unique selling point and being fact-based about specs is just the same.

But it fits the trend of a loser: every gen you add a new nudge towards more misleading specs. Its what Intel has been doing since they abandoned their eternal quad core. Their introduction of a half dozen turbo states fits that category too. It was never about being helpful with more specs. Its about creating headroom by twisting reality. Meanwhile, it gets ever harder to keep an Intel CPU cool and thus performant.

If you're winning, your design and your product speaks for itself. Consider AMD's Zen. Right now, its never even about the node or whatever TDP It has and when it does, stuff either gets fixed or placed in perspective. Its just about the product: what do you get for your money and why is it better than most of everything else. The funny thing is, that discussion is also alive for Intel product... but no longer in their high end offerings, but the midrange and lower end. They're still competitive there - usually not even just 'situationally'. It reminds me of AMD's GPU stack not too long ago.

Basically more marketing is inversely proportional to a worse product. Its very refreshing to look at the market and its offers that way across the board, a pair of glasses I'm very fond of tbh, and it rarely proves to be wrong.

Side note: it'll be interesting what they'll do when they went small enough to run out of numbers, seeing as they're way ahead of reality in racing to the number 1
Negative node sizes? -2nm? A rift in space and time?

 

[londiste]

Side note: it'll be interesting what they'll do when they went small enough to run out of numbers, seeing as they're way ahead of reality in racing to the number 1
Negative node sizes? -2nm? A rift in space and time?

Easy - picometers are next.
If I remember correctly 1 micrometer was around the time of 386.

 

[Wirko]

Did you post this article a day early?

It's a new category of jokes: a true joke. The first of April is not the appropriate date for those.

 

[mtcn77]

Intel is now the same ... Their 10nm being what it was, was a unique selling point and being fact-based about specs is just the same.

I want to chime in on this. This is so very untrue. The process integration is more organic than just which nodes they use.
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.

 

[R-T-B]

Dunno, I think that going along with 'the rest' in twisting the truth, actually is a complete and utter loss of a moral high ground in business and eventually a race to the bottom. Intel is now the same filth in every possible way. Their 10nm being what it was, was a unique selling point and being fact-based about specs is just the same.

I mean, you are right and wrong at the same time here. It depends on which department you ask: marketing/sales or the end user.

 

[qubit]

How have people not realised that this is an April Fool?

Seriously, you can't make up for a shortfall in process technology by just renaming it. It's absurd.

 

[Vayra86]

How have people not realised that this is an April Fool?

Seriously, you can't make up for a shortfall in process technology by just renaming it. It's absurd.

The fact we can't really be sure is telling and worrying at the same time. The last thing coming to my mind is funny

 

[R-T-B]

How have people not realised that this is an April Fool?

Seriously, you can't make up for a shortfall in process technology by just renaming it. It's absurd.

Because it was posted March 31st, and the whole industry is doing the "pick your name" thing anyways?

 

[mtcn77]

I still think Intel has this in the pocket. They just don't want to cut their margins. No one else has EMIB. They can make it, they just don't want MCM at this time. It would be the easiest thing for them to copy the Clarkdale Series. I bet you know which series reached 5GHz before any other?

 

[qubit]

Because it was posted March 31st, and the whole industry is doing the "pick your name" thing anyways?

I've seen AF articles on the 31st before on this site and many others, so don't let that fool you.

Just look carefully at the wording of that article. It's a bit subtle, but definitely a spoof. Good one, too.