After three years of delays, Intel plans 10nm chip shipments in June, 7nm in 2021

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 31
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,858administrator
    blastdoor said:
    blastdoor said:
    The labels are confusing and can’t be taken at face value. What intel calls 10nm is most similar to what TSMC calls 7nm. What intel calls 7 is analogous to TSMC 5.

    so intel is behind by a year, not 3 years 
    Given that they promised 10nm deliveries in 2016, yes, they are behind by three years.
    I think it's pretty clear that I meant behind TSMC, not behind Intel's stated schedule. 

    TSMC started shipping their 7nm (analogue of Intel 10nm) last year. 
    And, I think it's pretty obvious that the headline refers to Intel being three years late on promises for the size, so why you said it wasn't isn't clear.
    caladanianfastasleep
  • Reply 22 of 31
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,258member
    jdb8167 said:
    blastdoor said:
    The labels are confusing and can’t be taken at face value. What intel calls 10nm is most similar to what TSMC calls 7nm. What intel calls 7 is analogous to TSMC 5.

    so intel is behind by a year, not 3 years 
    Provide your sources backing up this claim.
    Unfortunately it is probably too technically difficult to quantify. There are different pitch values for each process. One way to measure would be to have similar CPU layouts and measure the transistor density but trade secrets and proprietary designs make that unlikely. This is technical article but with a couple of good charts: https://wccftech.com/intel-losing-process-lead-analysis-7nm-2022/

    This is more up-to-date with 10nm

    https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/10_nm_lithography_process
    Here's another, with a handy figure: 
    https://wccftech.com/analysis-about-intels-10nm-process/


  • Reply 23 of 31
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,258member
    blastdoor said:
    blastdoor said:
    The labels are confusing and can’t be taken at face value. What intel calls 10nm is most similar to what TSMC calls 7nm. What intel calls 7 is analogous to TSMC 5.

    so intel is behind by a year, not 3 years 
    Given that they promised 10nm deliveries in 2016, yes, they are behind by three years.
    I think it's pretty clear that I meant behind TSMC, not behind Intel's stated schedule. 

    TSMC started shipping their 7nm (analogue of Intel 10nm) last year. 
    And, I think it's pretty obvious that the headline refers to Intel being three years late on promises for the size, so why you said it wasn't isn't clear.
    You messed up in the text by suggesting that Intel 7nm is equivalent to TSMC 7nm. It's not. 
    caladanian
  • Reply 24 of 31
    bellsbells Posts: 140member
    Johan42 said:
    Sorry Intel ,too little too late. I hope you guys get enough money from servers & pro users, because  will leave you cold turkey in major flapship products from 2020. Sad ,that it has come to this, but I guess its inevitable since you guys overcharge for processors.  can make more affordable Macs by using their chip teams.
    “Major flagship” products that have little to no impact on Intel’s bottom line. Gotta have more than 0.01% of the total computing world buying Macs to scare Intel into releasing on Apple’s deadlines.
    Maybe so, but Apple considered using  Intel for the original iPhones and didn’t because of performance worries. That would have been huge money for Intel.
  • Reply 25 of 31
    jdb8167jdb8167 Posts: 626member
    blastdoor said:
    jdb8167 said:
    blastdoor said:
    The labels are confusing and can’t be taken at face value. What intel calls 10nm is most similar to what TSMC calls 7nm. What intel calls 7 is analogous to TSMC 5.

    so intel is behind by a year, not 3 years 
    Provide your sources backing up this claim.
    Unfortunately it is probably too technically difficult to quantify. There are different pitch values for each process. One way to measure would be to have similar CPU layouts and measure the transistor density but trade secrets and proprietary designs make that unlikely. This is technical article but with a couple of good charts: https://wccftech.com/intel-losing-process-lead-analysis-7nm-2022/

    This is more up-to-date with 10nm

    https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/10_nm_lithography_process
    Here's another, with a handy figure: 
    https://wccftech.com/analysis-about-intels-10nm-process/
    Just keep in mind, those are estimates, especially for the transistor density. And now TSMC has been shipping millions of 7 nm chips for almost 7 months while Intel has a low volume, dual core i3 in a couple of products. TSMC is about to ship their 7 nm+ in the next few months which might have different density yet again. But I agree, Intel 10 nm is approximately the same as TSMC's 7 nm.
  • Reply 26 of 31
    dt17dt17 Posts: 18member
    blastdoor said:
    The labels are confusing and can’t be taken at face value. What intel calls 10nm is most similar to what TSMC calls 7nm. What intel calls 7 is analogous to TSMC 5.

    so intel is behind by a year, not 3 years 
    Still.. they were the leaders for a very very long time and now they are behind.. don’t seemed to be able to catch up anytime soon too
  • Reply 27 of 31
    dt17dt17 Posts: 18member
    Johan42 said:
    Sorry Intel ,too little too late. I hope you guys get enough money from servers & pro users, because  will leave you cold turkey in major flapship products from 2020. Sad ,that it has come to this, but I guess its inevitable since you guys overcharge for processors.  can make more affordable Macs by using their chip teams.
    “Major flagship” products that have little to no impact on Intel’s bottom line. Gotta have more than 0.01% of the total computing world buying Macs to scare Intel into releasing on Apple’s deadlines.
    “Good business sense” until your main customers also have other options. Sure, just focus on servers and workstations. Great business plan
  • Reply 28 of 31
    FatmanFatman Posts: 513member
    Intel is a better marketer than chip manufacturer. Do you really think they would be referring to their tech as 10nm if it was really 7nm or equivalent? Don’t think so.
  • Reply 29 of 31
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,258member
    dt17 said:
    blastdoor said:
    The labels are confusing and can’t be taken at face value. What intel calls 10nm is most similar to what TSMC calls 7nm. What intel calls 7 is analogous to TSMC 5.

    so intel is behind by a year, not 3 years 
    Still.. they were the leaders for a very very long time and now they are behind.. don’t seemed to be able to catch up anytime soon too
    I agree that it’s a very big deal that intel has lost the process lead. The fact that AMD is now going to be using the new leader to fab x86 chips could potentially bring intel a world of pain.

    but — I’m not counting them out just yet. I think the key questing for intel is not whether they are capable of reclaiming the lead but whether they are willing to spend the money and compete in more product categories than just PC and server. So far it doesn’t look too good— they seem to be retreating to server land at every turn. But all they have to do is change their mind.... if they can go that before it’s too late they could reclaim the lead (probably won’t though)
  • Reply 30 of 31
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,310moderator
    Fatman said:
    Intel is a better marketer than chip manufacturer. Do you really think they would be referring to their tech as 10nm if it was really 7nm or equivalent? Don’t think so.
    There are differences in how the chips are designed, that one dimension isn't enough to determine a chip's performance level:

    https://seekingalpha.com/article/4151376-tsmc-intel-lead-semiconductor-processes

    Transistor density seems to be a more reliable measure but even then, they could make smaller chips that don't have as many transistors.

    - transistor density shows how advanced the process is
    - transistor count and clock speed shows how fast a chip will be
    - transistor count/clock speed weighed against power draw shows how efficient a chip will be

    They could make a high density chip that runs at low clock speeds to stay cool.

    According to the images on that site, Intel's 14nm process was behind Samsung's and TSMC's 10nm. iOS devices on 10nm benchmark high relative to Intel desktop/laptop processors vs power draw. However, Intel's 10nm is competitive with Samsung's and TSMC's 7nm (see left side of the second graph):



    The density increase is 2.7x over Skylake. That usually doesn't translate to a 2x increase in performance from one year to the next though. They make smaller, lower power chips one year and then boost the clocks or transistor counts in successive years so that they can get more sales from a single process. 2.7x could easily come in the form of 3x yearly 40% performance boosts or include reductions in power consumption and improvements to IGP power more than CPU (which isn't very noticeable in computers with dedicated GPUs).

    The density gains look promising from all manufacturers, it will be interesting to see the real-world performance gains from this. AMD's Navi GPUs are noted as being around 20TFLOPs. This will be around 100GFLOPs/Watt so could go in an iMac Pro. They are apparently making a dual model (300W) that will be around 30TFLOPs.
    1st
  • Reply 31 of 31
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,905member
    Besides all over opinions of Intel's 10nm processors; my question is when Apple will embed 10nm into Macbook/air/Pro ? Can't be too far behind Windows laptops!! The point is 10nm indrectly brings to Macbook/Air/Pro WiFi 6, LPDDR4X. Moreover, next upgrade of Macbook Air have at least 3 Thunderbolt 3 ports(two on left, one or two on right)
    edited May 2019
Sign In or Register to comment.