Nanometers
Nanometers
I don’t have the details on the new alder lake chip sizes. It seems there’s no publicly available information about their dimensions online.
Intel states its process as 10nm based on their tests, though there isn't a universal standard. When compared, Intel's 7nm performs much better than AMD's 7nm, which is why they adopted the name Intel 7. Here’s a breakdown of Intel/TSMC transistor density at 10nm: TSMC N7 – 91 TSMC N5 – 171 TSMC N3 – 290 Intel 14nm – 37.5 Intel 10nm – 101 Intel 7nn – 200-250 as shown, indicating roughly a 10% increase in transistor density compared to 7nm. This higher density justifies the name. Intel 7 continues this trend, matching TSMC's 3nm density between 5 and 3, hence the designation Intel 4. Those who claim the naming changes are misleading, as they overlook deeper technical details. Intel 3 offers a more refined version of Intel 4, similar to a later 14nm++, but instead of extending the line, they shift to Intel 20A. Naming a chip Intel 2 would imply a smaller upgrade, which isn't the case with new naming conventions. The shift reflects clearer alignment with industry standards and better market perception. TLDR: Intel updated its naming to better reflect TSMC's structure, improving clarity and potentially boosting sales.
Both "Intel 7" and "10 nm" are essentially marketing labels now. These figures don't really reflect the actual performance of CPUs anymore. https://spectrum.ieee.org/a-better-way-t...conductors https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/tsmc-7nm-5n...st-numbers
Usually trying to make it seem less significant isn't advisable.