It is currently like this at Intel:
Server area relies on 14nm
Desktop area relies on 14nm (since 2015
Mobile / laptop area relies on 10nm
Why don't they make it in the other areas? They have a lot more money than AMD at their disposal. Is someone familiar with that?
PS: Don't get me wrong, the performance with the 14nm desktop CPUs is very good, but unfortunately only if you beat the clock speeds high, which results in high energy consumption.
I think you didn't quite understand the processors.
What should 10nm do better than 14nm?
So why is AMD with 7nm significantly more energy efficient than Intel with 14nm?
Intel would like to stick to its plan and virtually perfect the fortifications before moving on to the next level. So they want to take as much good as possible into the next production. They have announced that they will soon go to 10nm to be at 1.4nm in 10 years.
You get more circuits on the square millimeter.
They have been announcing since 2017 that they will soon go to 10nm…
It also depends on how the whole chip is designed. If you take a look at the Atom processors from Intel, you will have more nanometers but much less consumption
The Atom processors are also much less powerful
And less power…
Yes I'm aware of that, but that is not the problem of the production size but of the expansion of the chip
Intel has severe problems with yields. In practical terms, it is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain high clock rates with a low nm number, but because 14nm are so mature, they can't beat their 14nm architecture with their 10nm architecture until they increase the clock rates there. In addition, Intel's 10nm architecture is much denser than that of others, which makes it even harder to achieve a real yield. E.g 10nm would be too expensive and even worse than 14nm, that will only change with the next 10nm architectures. Amd does not have this problem because 1. They do not produce anything themselves, but let others do it, who do it for a lot of other customers, so they have an extremely much more experience, and have all the resources just for it, and 2. The node is not that strong how intel wants to make hers.
10nm has a smaller path in the transistors to switch over, which is why they are faster, and because of their smaller design, they use less energy to switch over.
@xNITOx a shorter way? It's really hard for me to believe that now.
With smaller transistors, the source and drain are closer, so they have to move less. Google simply why smaller transistors are better, after that you can also read real papers about it that explain it in detail. Mind you, the whole numbers are more marketing these days. 10nm can be better than 7nm, depending on how you mature the process because only the smallest part determines which node you have. Edit: there's also a kind of bonus because you can make the chip smaller, which also reduces the time that the signal takes from one side to the other.
@xNITOx so I was always in the belief that the size is getting smaller to accommodate more transistors.
Well, that too, but it also has the effect of using less energy etc.
@xNITOx
Maybe I should upgrade.
Depends on what kind of CPU you currently have, new cpus are a lot faster, but you don't really need that. Games, for example, are mainly limited by the gpu and therefore do not see such a big advantage.
