content: I understand tick-tock but the wording I dislike is "tick-tock shattering." First off, you got tick-tock backwards. Haswell is tock (major/microarchitecture) and Broadwell is tick (minor/die shrink). Then, if you read the article you find that, after Skylake (tock/major/microarchitecture), they were expecting to make Cannonlake (tick/minor/die shrink) but they're injecting another chip, Kaby Lake. Now, Kaby Lake won't be a die shrink so it's not a traditional tick, but they're definitely not changing the microarchitecture inbetween Skylake and Cannonlake, so it's definitely not a tock. I feel the implication of "tick-tock shattering" is that they're breaking the minor-major cycle in some spectacular way. Well, that must mean shattering it for a major change, right? Nope... starting at Skylake, they're going tock-tickish-tick instead of tock-tock-tick.