the link says 14nm - shows how links can fool a person - yeah the story is about 1.4nm but the link says 14nm - they just could have said 1nm
 
 
2nd... do we trust intel whose been stuck on 14nm forever it seems
 

Xavier Zepherious
the link says 14nm - shows how links can fool a person - yeah the story is about 1.4nm but the link says 14nm - they just could have say 1nm

The use of periods in a URI is a gray area. It's generally frowned upon. Their website software clearly is programmed to drop the period inside the URI. EVGA's forum software did the same thing. Don't read into it; it's a silly thing to do.

EVGA Forum:
Subject: Intel Process Roadmap Shows 1.4nm in 2029, Two-Year Cadence
URI:

https://forums.evga.com/Intel-Process-Roadmap-Shows-14nm-in-2029-TwoYear-Cadence-m3014480.aspx

Xavier Zepherious
also note the story there used a Dash between 1 and 4 (1-4) in hyperlink to make 1.4

Exciting

 I am far too cynical
 
 

Whomever planned that slide is an incredible optimist. Going by that very slide, it will be 5 or 6 years on 10nm alone...
 
Ironically, it makes it seem 50/50 odds if Intel will be using 10nm+++ or early 7nm when it takes on the 5nm DDR5 Zen 4 chips in 2021. My money is on 10nm... Zen 4 is going to have a field day either way, that's for sure. 

Hoggle
I think it's worth waiting and seeing. We don't know what the R&D department is doing at Intel but we do know that they have the money to spend and if the goal is to beat AMD they might be trying something new that could pay off very large in the future. I wouldn't hold my breath for this to happen but it would be very exciting if they can pull it off.

Funny you mention that, a friend and I were wondering what Intel was doing with its big R&D budget the past few years. Yes Intel is investing in R&D for a huge number of non-CPU things, but CPU's specifically it seems to be stagnating. Give a 4790K enough OC to match current quadcore clockspeeds and the perf keeps up surprisingly well for a seven year old chip. Take any other 7-year range in CPU history and the gap would be considerable. 
 
The other thing is Intel doesn't innovate much in the CPU space. AMD created x64, was the first to combine die to make a dualcore processor, and even to integrate the memory controller into the CPU. AMD was first with PCIe 4.0, and the roadmaps indicate AMD will be first to adopt DDR5 with Zen 4. AMD was certainly first to begin offering insane numbers of cores on consumer chips and price them aggressively. 
 
AMD hasn't been shy about innovating, and being more consumer friendly with its pricing and products. They bent over backwards just to maintain the same AM4 socket with Zen 2, Anandtech had some comparative diagrams to showcase the progression from first-gen Zen. Meanwhile if the LGA1200 rumor is correct then Intel will have broken socket compatibility twice for nothing other than tweaking power pins, the CPU uArch hasn't changed. If and when Intel adopts DDR5 that socket will have to change again in two years. Really hate the forced obsolescence, and all the more so when Intel has nothing to show for it.