Exynos 9 is being fabbed on 10nm process right now to be used on Galaxy Note refresh coming in Late August/September time frame.
Snapdragon 830 will also start production soon on Samsung's 10nm process.
It appears Intel's manufacturing advantage has all but evaporated.
Samshit's 10nm is just only reaching Intel's 14nm in feature size
But hey, keep falling for the meme I guess
>>54605254
>It appears Intel's manufacturing advantage has all but evaporated.
Intel's manufacturing advantage lies in the fact that they can make high performance chips, while Samsung's process is optimized for low power phone chips.
>>54605268
>no production sample available to outside research firms to determine whether feature sizes on Samsung's 10nm node is smaller or larger than Intel's 14nm node
>I KNOW IT'S LARGER HURR
butthurt kike pls go
>>54605254
They began production of another variation on their 14nm node too, higher density than any other. That means a tighter back end which is fairly impressive. They're just pouring billions into R&D to fight their way to the top.
TSMC is doing the same as well. Pretty exciting times in the fab world again.
>>54605268
Intel had nothing but teething issues with their 14nm node because of the crazy density. Broadwell Core M's launch was a mess, desktop Broadwell was delayed, it was rumored to be cancelled, then they only released a couple SKUs which were immediately pulled out of the market. Then Skylake launched, mobile chips only at first. It took forever for high TDP desktop chips to get in stock, and when they were showing up volume was limited.
Samsung stated shitting out Exynos 7420 chips in 2015 without issue, and quickly followed with 60% of all A9 chips for Apple.
>>54605298
Well going off published information from their 14nm production which was larger than intel's 14nm production by a fair margin... As long as samsung follows the expected curve, they wont be beating intel. Sorry, intels lead isn't going to disappear just because samsung decides to name it smaller than Intels process.
>>54605297
>what is HVT, RVT, LVT, sLVT, and etc
Don't embarrass yourself trying to talk about something you don't understand in the slightest.
Samshit's 14nm is 20nm BEOL with FINFET transistors
It's nothing compared to Intel's true 14nm process
Lel samsung is talking about producing 7nm in 2017 while Intel is struggling with 10nm
the intel fanboy tears are delicious
>>54605402
Samshit's 7nm is only equivalent to Intel's 10nm feature size
Dumb people should not post about things they don't understand
>>54605358
OMFG!!!
OMG
transistors....... wait whoa whoa whoa.......... transistors, come in........ different VOLTAGE PROFILES?!?!?!?!?!
OMFG
MIND = BLOWN
>>54605421
actually they just bought a new EUV machine from ASML to do it at a proper density
>Dumb people should not post about things they don't understand
I agree
>>54605479
You just have to buy better equipment...Why hasn't someone been competing with intel before now then...?
>>54605479
BTFO
>>54605479
http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/english/news/industry/14703-7-nm-foundry-competition-samsung-electronics-seeks-preoccupy-7-nano-foundry
>However, it is still unclear whether the company will be able to apply the equipment in its mass production line. Although the EUV equipment was considered the last resort to break through the limit of fine process, it only verified its mass productivity in theory and there is no actual application cases.
Like I said, ignorant uneducated people like you should not be posting on /g/
>>54605497
sigh....I guess this confirms Internet is really easy to use nowadays since even you seem to be able to do it
>>54605425
>ironic shitposting after making an ass of yourself
I bet you had to frantically google that to try and save face. Pretty sad.
Samsung's 14nm portfolio isn't limited in anyway from producing "high performance" parts. In fact LPP shows higher fmax along with lower voltage, and drastically lower leakage than 28nm HPP.
The 14nm process that AMD's upcoming Zen and Polaris chips are built on is a variation of Samsung's 14nm LPP.
>>54605521
Jesus you're stupid, if you honestly think samsungs process could go head to head with intel you're god damn insane, intel is still at least 12-18 months ahead of anyone else, they may not be 24-36 months ahead like they were a year or two ago though.
>>54605516
>http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/07/ibm-unveils-industrys-first-7nm-chip-moving-beyond-silicon/
>no actual application cases
>believing shill news
>trying this hard to come across as wise and intelligent online
>18 replies
>7 posters
dude, calm down
>>54605538
>muh year process lead!
Guess how I know you're a little cretin who reads Anandtech all day long?
Intel got into the position they're in by having the biggest bank roll, there is no unseen magical force keeping them at the top. Other foundries are matching and exceeding their fab R&D expenditures and they're catching up. In churning out tens of millions of ARM SoCs per quarter both Samsung and TSMC are beating intel in raw volume shipped year after year as well.
>>54605254
"10 nm" is not to be taken loo literally. In the end it's just a brand name of sorts. And Samsung is well known to give their processes exaggerated names that don't compare to similarly named processes by other manufacturers. I'd bet that their 10 nm process can't be compared to what Intel calls a 10 nm process.
I.e. look for the Apple A9 chip: It was produced by both Samsung and TSMC. The TSMC turned out to be superior to the Samsung one, even though TSMC used a 16 nm process and Samsung claimed to use a 14 nm process.
Samsung are a bunch of frauds. They use every shitty little trick to make their products seem superior, even when they are still catching up.
>>54605568
I have intimate knowledge of samsung's fabrication processes despite the fact i'm just some random faggot on the internet, I know more even than the investors who's job it is to analyse these things day in and day out.
Oh okay.
>>54605597
>sjw tech news
>experts
kek, nigerian scammers would love to get a hold on you
>>54605634
Kek, and i'm supposed to believe you FUD?
Come on man, you're far less reliable than that article, you're a random shit poster on /g/.
>>54605595
Stop regurgitating this clickbait myth, you uneducated child.
There was 1 disparity between the two A9s in Geekbench, and it turned out to be an issue with Geekbench itself.
Apple tuned chips from each vendor to meet the same nominal power draw and clocks. There is no statistical difference between either chip in performance, power consumption, or thermals.
You have to be a real shit eating retard to think a company like Apple is going to have different hardware with different performance metrics in a single SKU without differentiating them at all.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/iphone-6s-a9-samsung-vs-tsmc,30306.html
>>54605653
Well I gave you a few links of proof of production in 7nm, but I guess you are the kind that believes his feelings instead of facts. Don't cry, I promise I'll be more gentle next time x
>>54605692
>facts
please post some real facts then
you posted a single article from a year ago. Wew
>>54605692
Pro tip: IBM has no fabs. It's a fucking vaporware.
>>54605656
That still doesn't explain why the supposedly superior 14 nm process yields the same performance than a 16 nm process. Everybody who's not a naive fanboy should see a classic Samsung move.
>>54605712
So the chip they displayed came out of thin air? Makes sense
>>54605707
that article is so 2015 right? I mean c'mon! that's how you sound right now.
>>54605753
Well for something you're claiming has real applications you posting an article from a year ago is hardly evidence to the contrary.
>>54605791
Well I am glad we can agree, take care anon x
>>54605595
spotted the retard
>>54605717
None of the chips in iphones are running at their max possible clocks at a given voltage. They are all set to a nominal level. They are set so that they are all the same.
People as stupid as you should be killed by the state.
>>54605961
So you're saying apple gimped it?
Are you being paid by samsung?
Not to mention, if that was the case we should have seen significant battery improvements compared to TSMC, instead it's negligible.
>>54605997
How are you not capable of understanding this? Is your IQ literally 80?
All mobile chips are classified by binning. Apple chooses the binning they want, and the final clocks at a given voltage in the device. Apple sourced chips from both Samsung and TSMC that would reach the same clocks at the same nominal voltage and power draw. They did this because all of the chips were going into the same devices with the same SKUs.
>>54606031
are you fucking retarded?
Its 14nm vs 16nm, either it performs better at the same TDP, or they set it to a lower TDP to match the other's performance and it saves more power.
You can't just fucking magically make it use more power without giving a performance gain, the power use has to go somewhere faggot.
>>54605340
14nm Intel still has a lot of issues on their laptop chips. Skylake, Broadwell and Cherry Trail Atom all have sleep/hibernate issues that still haven't been fixed yet. Shits broken as fuck.
>>54606071
>hello, my name is anonymous and I'm a shit eating retard
Chips are *never* set to run at their maximum possible clock for a given voltage. Ever. If X chip can hit 2.3ghz at 1.1v it will never ship that way in any consumer product. It will be set to run at 2ghz and 1v to give a greater margin to ensure stability.
Everything is run this way from ARM micro controllers to your desktop CPU.
Apple sourced chips from each vendor to hit the same target. If you can't understand this then you need to stop posting.
Tech illiterate retards need to stay in /v/ where they belong.
>>54606161
I imagine Apple A9 being set on maximum possible clock would cause Hiroshima 2.0
>>54605254
Is mediatek still on 28nm?
>>54606393
They launched some 20nm parts a while back if I recall.
