By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Pemalite said:

Can you not ban entire I.P ranges?
Because even dynamically allocated I.P addresses are limited in "range" via the ISP.

Yes, you can ban entire IP ranges but what happens if another user on this site is using the same IP range as the offender ? Personally speaking though I would rather deal with the offender's ISP to restrict him from going to this site. 

Pemalite said:

http://www.newelectronics.co.uk/electronics-news/tsmc-takes-on-intel-after-claims-about-transistor-density/59122/

I knew you'd bring this up but what you've shown to me is clear cut damage control from TSMC ... LOL 

They didn't outright deny Intel's claim of their density so instead they resorted to saying this ... 

In fact, Dr Liu claims TSMC has the better performance. "We took the approach of using the FinFET transistor to improve the performance on top of the similar back end technology in our 20nm process. This transistor performance, and innovative layout methodology, can improve the chip size by about 15%. Because transistor drive is much stronger, you don't need such a big area to deliver the same driving circuitry." 

What their basically saying is because of the improved performance of moving to FinFET TSMC feels that they can superficially improve density by deliberately making the chip smaller but little did they know that Intel or samsung could do the same thing. They were being totally misleading with that statement if not maybe even dishonest because it was clear from that response that they didn't improve transistor density. 

Even you can go ask soleron about it and he'll agree with me on this. It's so sad to see TSMC getting outdone by a failure of a semiconductor foundry such as globalfoundries but then again they got piggybacked by daddy samsung.