Intel admits it won't catch up with AMD's 7nm chips until 2021

[smilingcrow]

Not legally, but when has that ever stopped people!

If they aren't pin compatible or don't have BIOS support you'd have to buy a Chinese motherboard as well, with a Chinese only BIOS maybe!
They could be cheap enough to tempt some no doubt.
Buy one from AliExpress and they will list the value as $10 so no taxes to pay either!

 

[jigger]

But... we've already heard about them.

So import one.

 

[Zernath]

So import one.

I'm good thanks, the Chinese already have enough data on me via my phone!

 

[Rofflay]

Maybe they want it for thier military purposes like space etc without backdoors?

 

[pmc25]

Really no point in trying to use 4nm Vs 7nm and say one better than other like you suggesting because they just marketing names and not really relative to process/performance. Which is frustrating from a technical standpoint when trying to compare.

I can guarantee you that TSMC / Samsung 4nm projected performance is worlds away from any revision of Intel 7nm.

 

[4K8KW10]

Let's not forget that AMD uses 7nm only on one of the chiplets, none of their product lineup is fully 7nm. It's 7nm + 14nm.

intel has enough room to remain competitive with 14nm/14nm+/14nm++ but obviously doesn't want and selling 1:2/1:3 or even 1:4 CPUs against AMD makes it happy.

i9-9900K is ~177 mm2 [[with ~30% that belongs to the iGPU (~53 mm2)]].
Ryzen 7 3700X is ~80.80 mm2 + 122.63 mm2 = 203.43 mm2.
Ryzen 9 3900X is ~2 X 80.80 mm2 + 122.63 mm2 = 284.23 mm2.

i9-10900KF should be ~200 mm2 on the 14nm++.

 

[MagicBoy]

The IO die wouldn't benefit from being 7nm as physical interfaces don't scale down particularly well. It's common sense to use 7nm where it's most useful.

Head back 10+ years and it was common for northbridges to be on a much larger process than the CPU, before the functionality migrated onto the CPU package. It's the same thing.

 

[Boomstick777]

Wait does this mean 14nm +++++ until 2021 ?

 

[Tee Hee Johnson]

All these +++ jokes were old after the first one, yawn.

It's pretty even ground at the moment, and Intel won't take it laying down.

 

[Rroff]

It isn't really a joke - Intel is literally on a technical ++++ version of the process. (I might have lost count but I'm pretty sure they are currently on an official 4th revision).

 

[MaXxBoulton]

It isn't really a joke - Intel is literally on a technical ++++ version of the process. (I might have lost count but I'm pretty sure they are currently on an official 4th revision).

And there is another on the way..

 

[4K8KW10]

Wait does this mean 14nm +++++ until 2021 ?

Why not? Looking at it from the bright side, we need larger dies in order to keep them cooler with less efforts.
Imagine a shrunk to 10nm 10-core processor at tiny 100 mm2 at frustrating 95W TDP! It will be terrible for cooling.

They still have plenty of headroom to build up to 300 mm2 CPUs on the 14nm process.

 

[Boomstick777]

All these +++ jokes were old after the first one, yawn.

Who's joking about 14nm+++++, that's what it will be right ?

It's pretty even ground at the moment, and Intel won't take it laying down.

 

[Boomstick777]

 

[Grim5]

Poor intel underdog one day hopefully they will be strong again to fight off this big bully amd

 

[4K8KW10]

Poor intel underdog one day hopefully they will be strong again to fight off this big bully amd

AMD's best offer is the Ryzen 7 1700 that can be had for £134.
After OC, you would basically get virtually the Ryzen 7 3700X performance, that goes for £200 more.

 

[jigger]

AMD's best offer is the Ryzen 7 1700 that can be had for £134.
After OC, you would basically get virtually the Ryzen 7 3700X performance, that goes for £200 more.

You virtually don't get the same performance.

 

[jigger]

That should be three Intel engineers beating a forth engineer for suggesting they fix security flaws.

 

[4K8KW10]

You virtually don't get the same performance.

In some apps, there is a little more difference, but in gaming it's maximum 10% which doesn't justify the 2.5X price increase!

There is no difference between 3700X and 2700X in many apps, or the difference is so negligible that it isn't worth it to be discussed.

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_3700x_ryzen_9_3900x_review,18.html

 

[triss]

In some apps, there is a little more difference, but in gaming it's maximum 10% which doesn't justify the 2.5X price increase!

There is no difference between 3700X and 2700X in many apps, or the difference is so negligible that it isn't worth it to be discussed.

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_3700x_ryzen_9_3900x_review,18.html

AMD's best offer is the Ryzen 7 1700 that can be had for £134.
After OC, you would basically get virtually the Ryzen 7 3700X performance, that goes for £200 more.


First up you stated the 1700x Then posted a table for the 2700x. Both of which are basically EOL now anyway.
OFC if you wish to go buy a first gen ryzen i doubt anyone will try and stop you.