Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The most interesting question is whether the dead Intel process node should be blamed on bad choices (e.g. deferring adoption of EUV lithography) or on incompetence, and also on shortsighted financial management or on optimistic/clueless technical leadership: we can live without Cannon Lake CPUs, but where will Intel be in 5 years?


TSMC 7FF isn't based on EUV either, and their 7+ is only going to use it on 4 "non-critical layers" (i.e., they're still testing it out).

The best speculation I've seen is this:

https://wccftech.com/analysis-about-intels-10nm-process/

> Our sources tell us it had to do primarily with Intel overextending too early. SAQP or Self Aligning Quad Patterning is the technique the company used to make its 10nm process and it was the first in the industry to attempt to do so.


Isn't GF's 7nm process also dead? [edit: corrected now]


Argh, thanks, I keep typing GF when I mean TSMC. I haven't had enough coffee. Edited my post to correct.


Afaik, only Samsung has figured out EUV for mass production?


I found this /g/ post of a while ago interesting: https://pastebin.com/TbtYmtyB




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: