Register
Notebookcheck
, , , , , ,
search relation.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 

Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: S.Yu
« on: March 08, 2020, 15:33:07 »

>Intel's nomenclature differs from the other foundries such as TSMC
A more accurate way to put this would be that "no two foundries share nomenclature", e.g. Samsung's 5nm density would seem to fall significantly behind TSMC.
Posted by: Redaktion
« on: March 08, 2020, 04:05:47 »

In a very honest reflection on the state of Intel's current competitive position, CFO George Davis not only admitted that 10nm won't be as profitable as previous nodes, but that Intel is in fact behind other foundries when it comes to manufacturing technology. Davis doesn't expect Intel will catch up until its 7nm process becomes available in 2021.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-admits-that-the-10nm-process-is-doing-poorly.456063.0.html

 
C 2018 » Impressum     Sprachen: Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Türkçe | Svenska