Sort of. The nanometer number is mostly just marketing, and Intels “4nm” is really somewhere between TSMCs 5nm and 7nm as far as density goes. They’re still a ways behind, which is part of the reason their chips are so inefficient comparatively
Comment on Huawei Teardown Shows 5nm Laptop Chip Made in Taiwan, Not China
Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 8 months agoIntel fab does sub 7nm. Meteor Lake processors main die use Intel 4, and the gpu die uses TSMC 5nm.
Trashboat@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 months ago
Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 8 months ago
You are ware that the nm value used for samsungs and tsmcs process is also marketing right?
ichbinjasokreativ@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I know it’s more complicated than just node size, but you’re making it sound like intel cpus are roughly the same transistor density as current AMD cpus, so why is amd that much more efficient?
Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 8 months ago
Phoenix is on 4nm, Intel 4 is more comparable to 5nm, so its definitely not what ive been saying remotely when ive explicitly said that Intel 4 is comparable to tsmc N5 node.
stuner@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Do you have a source for that? According to WikiChip Fuse, Intel 4 is comparable to TSMC N3 in density and offers better performance: fuse.wikichip.org/news/6720/…/4/
On paper, those PPA characteristics positions the company’s new Intel 4 process at performance levels better than TSMC N3 and Samsung 3GAE. On the density front, Intel 4 appears highly competitive against N3 high-performance libraries.
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Intel’s lithography process branding is intentionally misleading:
This was done because Intel basically missed an entire generation, and AMD and Nvidia (via TSMC and Samsung) basically leapfrogged them. They’re playing catchup now, and this is marketing spin to make their stuff look better on paper by changing the numbers and removing the units so they’re not technically falsely advertising, just misleading.
Beyond the “Intel 3” node, the process names are Intel 20A and Intel 18A, which, despite the lack of hard information at the moment, I’m pretty suspicious are also misleading branding/marketing attempts, because the symbol for “angstrom” is Å, not A.
Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 8 months ago
Its misleading because intel nodes at a given nm is a denser process. Finfett tech nm on its own is already a misleading number. Intels 10nm for example is a denser node than TSMCs 7nm. All companies use a non traditional method of measuring nm (as if they did, how does it make sense that a intel 10nm product have higher density than something that is “7nm”) as chip transitior is traditionally defined by the dostamce between transistor to transistor. And denser = transistors are closer together.
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Yep. I understand that. It’s still intentionally misleading.
If Intel could match the processor density, they’d just call it what it is. They’re almost certainly going to catch up eventually, but this naming crap is 100% a marketing ploy. If you also consider the hilarious and asinine slide deck they put together somewhat recently (and then quickly took down after they were basically laughed out of the room by the tech community), it’s very clear they’re trying to keep up with the Joneses (AMD).
They have HUGE enterprise and consumer marketshare, so they’re clearly not going anywhere… but as someone who does actually understand the physics in play here (EECS), it’s embarrassing to see a company that was a market leader and pioneer for so many years sink to such frankly embarrassing tactics.
Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 8 months ago
Im not necessarily saying what intel is doing is right. Im just saying that its a situation where they are ALL doing it, so everyone is wrong in the first place.
When someone technically says 5nm, its either they all have reached 5nm or none of them (based on how true you are to the definition of a nm process), and chooseing a mixed result means you fell into some companies marketing.