InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 8
Posts 2182
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 06/27/2003

Re: None

Monday, 02/15/2016 12:32:41 PM

Monday, February 15, 2016 12:32:41 PM

Post# of 151735
Any process guys want to dispute TCEs process claim that TSMC16 is on par with Intel 14nm and its process costs are cheaper?

Apparently he is good buds with #fablesspumper Nenni:

"Intel's explanation
At Intel's 2015 investor meeting, the company's technology chief explained that once one normalizes the transistor areas for transistor composition (some transistor types take up much more area than others), Intel's 14-nanometer technology has a clear density/area lead over the competition.

The implication, of course, is that if two skilled chip teams implemented the same chip in the two different processes, Intel's chip would be smaller and ultimately more cost effective.

This explanation seems quite plausible. However, Daniel Nenni of SemiWiki brought up a point a while ago that it's difficult to dismiss: If transistor composition is critical to getting an accurate comparison of chip densities, then why not compare two parts with roughly the same power/performance targets?

In particular, the question that he asks is essentially: Why didn't Intel disclose both transistor count and die size for its low-power Cherryview (Atom) system-on-chip, which is aimed at just about the same power target as the Apple A9/A9X? The compositions in this case should be more comparable.

The fact that Intel hasn't disclosed transistor counts for either its 22-nanometer or 14-nanometer Atom processors certainly serves as a potential yellow flag with respect to Intel's claims of cost-per-transistor superiority. " http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/15/do-intel-corps-cost-per-transistor-claims-hold-up.aspx
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent INTC News