|
|
|
|
|
|
by mikhailt
2039 days ago
|
|
|
I suspect they do not want to mention it because fab process advantage isn't easy to understand as they're not all the same. For an example, TSMC's 7nm process is more comparable to Intel's 10/14nm process [^ 1]. It's not clear what TSMC's 5nm process is comparable to for Intel's sizes. As you said, design itself is key also. Look at how well AMD was able to optimize Zen 3 vs. Zen 2 and it is on the same 7nm TSMC process for ~20% IPC gain without increasing power usage too much. It's going to be interesting to see what Apple can do for the next generation, which I suspect will be on 5nm again. And Ars did mention it in this specific Ars review: > Lastly, let's remember that the M1 is built on TSMC's 5nm process—a smaller process than either AMD or Intel is currently using in production. Intel is probably out of the race for now, with its upcoming Rocket Lake desktop CPU expected to run on 14nm—but AMD's 5nm Zen 4 architecture should ship in 2021, and it's at least possible that Team Red will take back some performance crowns when it does. [1]: https://www.techpowerup.com/272489/intel-14-nm-node-compared... |
|
|