AMD to use Samsung 14NM process by the end of next year

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

According to Samsung, AMD is going to use their 14NM process node next year:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/samsung-amd-qualcomm-apple-finfet,27808.html
http://techreport.com/news/27149/report-samsung-to-produce-14-nm-chips-for-amd

 

[Boomstick777]

20nm, 16nm, 14nm.. Tbh just as long as we move on from 28nm soon I don't care what they move onto

 

[Doogles]

20nm, 16nm, 14nm.. Tbh just as long as we move on from 28nm soon I don't care what they move onto

Yep. I hope they bring it out in another 12-18 months though because @1440p my R9 290 holds up fine but I will want to upgrade to 4k soon (along with a lot of the community) so 8GB VRAM + 20/16/14nm will be great for that.

EDIT: Well that is a massive fluff up, thought I was posting in the GPU section! (Need to go to bed)

 

[Orangey]

And of course wccf have whipped up another news story from this out of thin air:

http://wccftech.com/samsung-14nm-process-candidate-amd-zen-architecture/

14nm is a mobile process...

16nmFF+ is more likely:

http://wccftech.com/tsmc-produce-16nm-finfet-cpus-amd-volume-production-2h-2016/

 

[deshepherd]

20nm, 16nm, 14nm.. Tbh just as long as we move on from 28nm soon I don't care what they move onto

16nm/14nm are in reality what used to be called 20nm (ie next node step from 28nm) but everyone (or everyone's marketing departments) renamed their 20nm prices as 14 out 16 when people realised that what Intel was calling 22nm was much the same as everyone else's 28nm. Was an amusing article I read recently which competed various dimensions of different upcoming 14/16nm processes and included a comment that none of the dimensions actually were 14 or 16nm.

 

[Orangey]

As I understand it they are calling it Xnm to reflect the kind of density/power characteristics they claim to have.

 

[Rroff]

16nm/14nm are in reality what used to be called 20nm (ie next node step from 28nm) but everyone (or everyone's marketing departments) renamed their 20nm prices as 14 out 16 when people realised that what Intel was calling 22nm was much the same as everyone else's 28nm. Was an amusing article I read recently which competed various dimensions of different upcoming 14/16nm processes and included a comment that none of the dimensions actually were 14 or 16nm.

Similar story with "10nm" at the moment where what several companies are calling 10nm is actually anything sub 19nm planar.

 

[Deleted member 76686]

The ability to do a smaller fab isn't the real problem, the real problem becomes doing it in a cost effective way.