Intel is reviving a 6 year old 22nm chip because they can't make enough 14nm chips. - Yeah, i'd sell my intel stock if i had any

Today's $150 laptops on outdated process nodes can perform about as well as $500+ laptops from years ago, while using a fraction of the power. For example: Intel Core i3-370M vs. AMD A6-9220C or Intel Pentium Silver N5000.

Install an adblocker, and grandma won't care that it's not the latest and greatest.
This. Also most grannies are into ARM devices like Tablets. Only people this may fuck over are office drones stuck with Dell latitudes, that may not be able to handle whatever poorly obtimized enterprise software they are forced to use for their job.
 
I wonder how much far we would've been in mobile computing if we had switched from CISC to RISC decades ago.
Only now that Apple and Microsoft are slowly switching to ARM on their laptops.
None. I don't think you understand exactly what CISC does, but a well designed RISC processor and a well designed CISC processor are equally fast. The difference only really matters if you're doing assembler, and then each of them have a separate category of errors that you can fuck yourself over with that the other one doesn't.

As far as I know modern x86 CPUs are essentially RISC in a crispy CISC shell to maintain compatibility, like a taco.
The difference between RISC and CISC nowadays is pretty blurry. I wouldn't get hung up on it.
 
I wonder if they'll go back and die shrink the prescott p4's down to 14nm If they were hitting 3.8Ghz at 90nm... Maybe they can get something up to 6ghz on air?
 
Yeah, old ladies need cutting-edge .0000009nm chips made with alloys sourced from crashed alien spaceships to check their AOL emails and post Fox News clips on Facebook.
Well once they hear about how long the battery life and how cool is on the device that uses .0000009nm compared to the 22nm Intel device they will buy it.
 
I wonder if they'll go back and die shrink the prescott p4's down to 14nm If they were hitting 3.8Ghz at 90nm... Maybe they can get something up to 6ghz on air?

Maybe they could but it would still suck. They got up to that frequency by having a very long pipeline for executing instructions which makes sense for certain processors, Intel just bet on the wrong horse* while AMD kept it more nimble and outperforming them at lower frequencies in realistic usage scenarios.

* Intel had ideas about the internet with the NetBurst architecture and one of those ideas was video, decompression and compression, tasks that would reliably feed the same type of math into the processor so the amount of pipeline stages wouldn't really matter. Maybe they were just ahead of their time and they wanted people to stream video games on... Kazaa or FTPs.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Strange Looking Dog
Back