Intel to outpace Moore's Law, surpass rivals in 2025, CEO says

Posted:
in General Discussion
Intel says it will work to outpace Moore's Law and create new processors that first catch up to its competitors in 2024 before eclipsing them in 2025, according to the company's chief executive.

Credit: Intel
Credit: Intel


Moore's Law, a term describing the steady pace of processor progress, was coined by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore. Although the law has been called into question in recent years, Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger said it is "alive and well."

"Today we are predicting that we will maintain or even go faster than Moore's law for the next decade," said Gelsinger at Intel's Innovation event Wednesday. "We as the stewards of Moore's Law will be relentless in our path to innovate."

Intel's leadership in the chip industry has faltered in recent years as the company has struggled to meet manufacturing milestones. That played a part in the loss of Apple's primary Mac computers, and has caused Intel to slip behind competitors like Samsung and TSMC.





Despite that, it appears that Intel is not giving up its fight. Earlier in October, Gelsinger even said as much, claiming that he would "never give up on the idea of anything not running on Intel chips."

Moore's Law originally applied to the number of transistors on a chip. More specifically, it was an observation that the number of transistors on a processor doubles every two years. However, the term has since shifted toward referring to performance and power consumption.

On Wednesday, Gelsinger appeared to shift that definition back to transfers, stating that Intel expects "to even bend the curve faster than a doubling every two years."

Intel is confident that it can catch up to TSMC and Samsung by 2024. Through investments and upgrades into more advanced chipmaking technology, it hopes to surpass them in 2025.

With competitors like Apple Silicon blowing away most rivals on the market, it remains to be seen whether that hope will pan out.

Read on AppleInsider
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 45
    If they want to compete, they need to get out of their own way first.
    MacProwilliamlondon
  • Reply 2 of 45
    I want to believe.
  • Reply 3 of 45
    Fred257Fred257 Posts: 125member
    I’m, they already have a chip that’s faster then Apple Silicon.

    https://www.gearnews.com/intel-alder-lake-mobility-chip-better-performance-than-apple-m1-max/
  • Reply 4 of 45
    geekmeegeekmee Posts: 489member
    If I was the CEO of Intel, I would say that to…
    Can you say? Whistling in the dark.
    Reminds me of the Monty Python sketch where the person is being quarter horsed and he says:
    “I am fine. It’s only a flesh wound.”
    edited October 28 MacsWithPenguinslolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 45
    crowleycrowley Posts: 9,130member
    They've got some fight in them yet.  Alder Lake does sound pretty impressive.
  • Reply 6 of 45
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 2,488member
    Moore's Law originally applied to the number of transistors on a chip. More specifically, it was an observation that the number of transistors on a processor doubles every two years. However, the term has since shifted toward referring to performance and power consumption. 

    That's news to me! I never knew it to mean anything other than transistors. The only change I recall is that long ago it was every 18 months but then it was changed to every 2 years. 

    I think I read somewhere that Intel is now bending the meaning to count 3d-stacking as increasing density. But I've never heard Moore's Law being about anything other than density. 

    thtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 45
    Fred257 said:
    I’m, they already have a chip that’s faster then Apple Silicon.

    https://www.gearnews.com/intel-alder-lake-mobility-chip-better-performance-than-apple-m1-max/
    Let’s see the numbers once it’s in a shipping notebook. Their current score looks like it’s using a desktop motherboard and who knows what kind of cooling and power it requires. 
    williamlondonMacsWithPenguinslolliverbyronlwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 45
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 2,488member
    For national security reasons, I sincerely hope that Intel does catch up and surpass everybody else. That's not because I necessarily love Intel, it's just because I don't think any other American company is remotely capable of it. 

    Even though it's going to be very hard to pull this off, it's not impossible. Intel still is very profitable, they still have a lot of talent. If they're wiling to invest the time and money, they might be able to do it. Of course, TSMC will try very hard to stay on top, and I'm sure Samsung will give it their best shot, too. 
    canukstormpatchythepiratewatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 45
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,659member
    It's not only about performance, Intel. Another important consideration is performance per unit of power.
    JWSCwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 45
    Fred257 said:
    I’m, they already have a chip that’s faster then Apple Silicon.

    https://www.gearnews.com/intel-alder-lake-mobility-chip-better-performance-than-apple-m1-max/
    Those geekbench results have been removed, so that either means they were fake or they were real... (go figure.)

    Point is: if they were real, by the time you see that chip in a laptop, Apple very well may have released an M2 Max or whatever that will surpass it. Apple has the luxury of not having to publicly disclose info about its chips until the product is shipping.

    Plus, we don't know if production chips will match those benchmarks or not - not to mention the potential power usage.

    Do I think that it's good for Intel and AMD to keep pressure on each other as well as the rest of the the industry? Absolutely. I'm just not convinced that Intel will catch up in a matter of months instead of the proposed 2024 timeline they just announced. (which also begs the question: "How do they know for sure where Apple/Google/Samsung/AMD's products will be in 3-4 years from now?")
    williamlondonMacsWithPenguinsrezwitslolliverJWSCwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 45
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 2,488member
    Fred257 said:
    I’m, they already have a chip that’s faster then Apple Silicon.

    https://www.gearnews.com/intel-alder-lake-mobility-chip-better-performance-than-apple-m1-max/
    Let’s see the numbers once it’s in a shipping notebook. Their current score looks like it’s using a desktop motherboard and who knows what kind of cooling and power it requires. 
    Yup -- quoting performance without power is meaningless for both mobile and data center applications. 
    rezwitslolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 45
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,933member
    ASML might have something to say about this.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 45
    Well bless his heart...
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 45
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 2,557member
    Fred257 said:
    I’m, they already have a chip that’s faster then Apple Silicon.

    https://www.gearnews.com/intel-alder-lake-mobility-chip-better-performance-than-apple-m1-max/
    It's barely faster and it accomplishes it at 3x to 4x the power draw.  So it doesn't win on performance per watt which is what is ultimately important.
    lolliverappleteamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 45
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 2,557member
    crowley said:
    They've got some fight in them yet.  Alder Lake does sound pretty impressive.
    Not really

    https://semiaccurate.com/2021/10/27/intels-alder-lake-is-needless-complexity/
    scstrrfwatto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 45
    cpsro said:
    ASML might have something to say about this.
    Intel is already a customer of ASML, and has been for over 2 decades actually.
    edited October 28 watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 45
    robabarobaba Posts: 195member
    Fred257 said:
    I’m, they already have a chip that’s faster then Apple Silicon.

    https://www.gearnews.com/intel-alder-lake-mobility-chip-better-performance-than-apple-m1-max/
    Let’s see them ship it, after all, we’ve been hearing “real soon now” for a very very long time.
    lolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 45
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,441member
    This is more significant for what the CEO didn’t say - he’s admitting that they’ve fallen behind. 
    It’s nothing that everyone didn’t already know, but it’s unusual for a CEO to actually admit it. He also said intel will “work to outpace Moore's Law and create new processors that first catch up to its competitors in 2024 before eclipsing them in 2025,” but that implies that they haven’t been working to do so already. Assuming they have, why should they suddenly be more successful in the ext 2 years than they have been in the last 10?
    anonconformistlolliverJWSCmuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 45
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,583member
    Once upon time, Intel CEO Andrew S. Grove said "Only the Paranoid Survive". Intel needs to go back to that like Apple does what it does because of Steve Jobs DNA built into Apple.
    JWSCwatto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 45
    omasouomasou Posts: 264member
    Here we go again back to 80's FUD.

    Let's talk CPU, let's talk about number of transistors, let's talk single core CPU scores, let's ignore multi-core CPU scores, let's ignore GPU, Unified Memory, memory bandwidth and give a slight nod to power efficiency.

    Facts are it's a CPU. A generic CPU with the exception of Windows 11 taking advantage of the chip's Thread Director technology. It's not a SOC. There isn't a corresponding GPU and memory that can be utilized at the same memory bandwidth. Let alone at the same power siping levels.

    So overall, it's all rhetoric focusing one piece of the puzzle, yes a major piece but no longer the most important piece. GPUs will drive AI and thereby future innovation and features.

    2024/2025! That's an eternity for CPUs. Translated that mean the board gave him until 2025 to right the ship.
    edited October 28 MacsWithPenguinslolliverwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.