redgarl :
Eximo :
I don't even want to get into the arguments about process node naming conventions and how they aren't really a direct measurement. Time and time again GloFo and TSMC have been compared to Intel process nodes and shown that what they call 14nm and 12nm isn't really when you do a direct comparison 14nm.
One man's turbo boost is another mans XFR, no real difference there. Just that Intel has more wiggle room at the top end because of the more mature process node. AMD will eventually get there, but by then Intel will be on their next node.
As for the paste, K class chips, yes, probably a little more attention to be paid there. But that isn't the bulk of Intel's sales, so they aren't going to cater to the smallest market.
i9 is just a rebranding(amongst many). I would more point fingers at the terrible idea of making Kabylake-X at all.
Just means more options for everyone. So hopefully Intel and AMD keep up the rapid pace.
I want Intel's Vega NUC, just not at that price. I can get a fully featured laptop for that. Just not competitive. I kind of want STX to become common place as I really like the idea of a build without front panel I/O wiring.
We are talking about 7nm vs 10 nm... a 30% difference in size and consumption. Also, Intel is not even close to master their 10nm tech while IBM is pushing the 7nm beyond extent.
As I said I don't want to get into the debate about the process node naming. It is demonstrably false from all parties, usually a single metric might meet that criteria and that is a measurement of how accurate they can be, not necessarily the size of anything in particular. And the whole CPU isn't built to the same scale. The only proper way to compare them is basically impossible (ie building the same chip with different nodes, you can see a little of this with ARM chips) What we have is essentially square area, transistor count, and power consumption, and performance to look at.
AMD is pushing a low power node to run at high frequencies, not ideal. When they push onto to the next node (not the rebranded 12nm they are using, which is only a little better) you should see an increase in clock frequency potentials akin to Intel. But by then Intel will have a new architecture on a new node. And I stress again that Intel's 10nm is likely superior for CPUs compared to up and coming 7nm nodes.
Remember it is easier to play catchup then it is to innovate. I think optimizing is a smart move while getting an effective node working at acceptable production levels.
I want to stress I am not picking sides. I find all of the marketing and positioning quite troubling, but that is what good marketing and strategy are for, increase the bottom line for shareholders.
You can get a lot of direct comparisons here:
https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/14_nm_lithography_process