Intel delays rollout of 7-nanometer chips by six months

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 47
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 2,496member
    lkrupp said:
    omasou said:
    JinTech said:
    And this is why Apple is switching to their own silicon. 
    Apple's switch to ARM is not related to this.  They were going to do it regardless.
    Apple Si and ARM are two completely different things.
    Apple's Silicon is based on the ARM Instruction Set Architecture.
    So now the geek army wants to argue about ARM vs Apple Silicon. Anything to try and diminish Apple’s achievement in this switch. The haters will insist on calling it Mac on ARM and Apple Silicon a cheap marketing trick to deceive users. Even though Apple’s SOCs will bear little resemblance to processors in other devices. But you go right ahead and bitch about it.

    edited July 2020
  • Reply 22 of 47
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,576member
    viclauyyc said:
    JinTech said:
    And this is why Apple is switching to their own silicon. 
    Apple's switch to ARM is not related to this.  They were going to do it regardless.
    Not true. Apple ditched Motorola for the very similar result. 

    Intel chip today is not much difference than 2 years ago. Just a little faster.

    At the same time, look how much improvement in Apple A series and AMD cpu?
    Nobody is denying that and that's besides the point.  Apple's goal is control all the key technologies of their ecosystem and they were going to switch to their own custom processors regardless of how well, or poorly, Intel was going to do.
    Largely because of crap like this...Intel has been a problem for Apple for many years, and that’s certainly a major part of why they looked into eliminating them. Had Intel been able to keep them happy of course they’d have stayed.
    Disagree. The day the 64-bit A7 SoC launched is the day Apple decided they were going to do their own silicon for Macs. It was a matter of when, not if.  People working in the silicon industry have known this for years.  Apple was moving away from Intel no matter what.  You and the rest can believe what you want.
    My guess is that Apple has been running ARM macOS since their first custom silicon, the A4 (circa 2010). Going 64-bit was a major milestone that confirmed their decision but Apple had already charted this direction years earlier.

    When the 64-bit iPhone SoC debuted, Apple's competitors were shocked into silence. The semiconductor industry knew the writing was on the wall. 

    Apple's lab prototypes have probably outperformed Intel's production hardware for a couple of years. Intel has missed all of their roadmap targets for years and Apple would be very aware of this. They would also be receiving and reviewing various engineering samples of the next generation Intel silicon and it would have been frightfully clear that Intel just couldn't deliver on their commitments.

    Intel made this happen. But it certainly wasn't overnight. This is basically years of Intel ineptitude. Meanwhile AMD emerges as a credible competitor and Nvidia moves past Intel in market capitalization.
    edited July 2020 canukstormjdb8167GG1h2prundhvidwatto_cobrafastasleep
  • Reply 23 of 47
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,423member
    lkrupp said:
    omasou said:
    JinTech said:
    And this is why Apple is switching to their own silicon. 
    Apple's switch to ARM is not related to this.  They were going to do it regardless.
    Apple Si and ARM are two completely different things.
    Apple's Silicon is based on the ARM Instruction Set Architecture.
    So now the geek army wants to argue about ARM vs Apple Silicon. Anything to try and diminish Apple’s achievement in this switch. The haters will insist on calling it Mac on ARM and Apple Silicon a cheap marketing trick to deceive users. Even though Apple’s SOCs will bear little resemblance to processors in other devices. But you go right ahead and bitch about it.

    Reminds me how iKnockoff morons made fun of the "Liquid Retina" name yet didn't know what it was.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 47
    digitoldigitol Posts: 237member
    Apple Silicon will totally and absolutely FuX0r InHell, i mean intel. 
  • Reply 25 of 47
    dewmedewme Posts: 3,688member
    I guess it’s good that they are being thoughtful by setting customer expectations. Preemptively announcing their failure to deliver will soften the blow for customers who’ve been eagerly anticipating their 7nm offerings. Customers can simply delay their new computer purchases by a few months. 

    Yeah, just kidding! Nobody in their right mind believed they had a chance to deliver on that pipe dream in the first place. But it sounded like a good story for those inclined to self delusion and anyone who hasn’t bought a new computer in the last decade or longer. 

    AMD must be giddy. 
    jdb8167prismaticswatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 47
  • Reply 27 of 47
    Looks like Intel's cycle is stuck in a permanent tock loop.
    GG1caladanianwatto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 47
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,822member
    iOSDevSWE said:
    Yup. We know. 
    rweswatto_cobrafastasleep
  • Reply 29 of 47
    viclauyyc said:

    Intel chip today is not much difference than 2 years ago. Just a little faster.


    You seem to forget all the Zero Day vunerabilities that are inherrent in the Intel design that need expensive (in terms of CPU performance) microcode patches to fix. Intel are on a hiding to nothing. If you own Intel stock, you should consider your position very carefully.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 47
    lkrupp said:
    omasou said:
    JinTech said:
    And this is why Apple is switching to their own silicon. 
    Apple's switch to ARM is not related to this.  They were going to do it regardless.
    Apple Si and ARM are two completely different things.
    Apple's Silicon is based on the ARM Instruction Set Architecture.
    So now the geek army wants to argue about ARM vs Apple Silicon. Anything to try and diminish Apple’s achievement in this switch. The haters will insist on calling it Mac on ARM and Apple Silicon a cheap marketing trick to deceive users. Even though Apple’s SOCs will bear little resemblance to processors in other devices. But you go right ahead and bitch about it.
    What you are impliying is basically the same as saying that AMD Ryzen got nothing to do with x86 because it doesn't use Intel design. No matter how you want to turn the truth around, Apple design are using the ARM instruction set. Yes, their design is the best among all ARM chips, but they are still following the ARM instruction set. 

    Using that ARM instruction set doesn't mean that you using the ARM chipset design.

    Intrustruction set doesn't equal internal design if that's the part that's confusing you. It just means that apple chip and other arm chip are speaking a language that is very similar, but apple chip are more fluent when it comes to speak in that language.



    Saying that doesn't take away any of Apple credits, geez.
    edited July 2020 elijahgdysamoriamuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 47
    skiwiskiwi Posts: 18member
    The article contains a factual error.. The 16” MacBook Pro is a Coffee Lake (9th generation Core i9) processor, not a 10th generation (Ice Lake) processor as asserted in the article.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 47
    Rayz2016 said:
    iOSDevSWE said:
    Yup. We know. 
    If everybody knew Canukstorm and I would not have to state the obvious. That’s why I wanted to clarify this once for all with a link to Apple’s website stating it is arm64. You said “Yes we know” but you were excluding those that wrote stupid things here thinking it is not. 😉
    elijahgGG1dysamoriamuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 47
    mike1mike1 Posts: 2,678member
    JinTech said:
    And this is why Apple is switching to their own silicon. 
    Apple's switch to ARM is not related to this.  They were going to do it regardless.

    If Intel wasn't causing them grief, they may not have switched. Intel hasn't delivered what Apple needed, when they needed it for years.
    robabawatto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 47
    larryjwlarryjw Posts: 808member
    omasou said:
    JinTech said:
    And this is why Apple is switching to their own silicon. 
    Apple's switch to ARM is not related to this.  They were going to do it regardless.
    Apple Si and ARM are two completely different things.
    Apple was going to switch precisely because Intel couldn't deliver. I'm sure Apple knew Intel was failing at least five years ago, and had to make transition plans. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 47
    larryjwlarryjw Posts: 808member

    viclauyyc said:
    JinTech said:
    And this is why Apple is switching to their own silicon. 
    Apple's switch to ARM is not related to this.  They were going to do it regardless.
    Not true. Apple ditched Motorola for the very similar result. 

    Intel chip today is not much difference than 2 years ago. Just a little faster.

    At the same time, look how much improvement in Apple A series and AMD cpu?
    Nobody is denying that and that's besides the point.  Apple's goal is control all the key technologies of their ecosystem and they were going to switch to their own custom processors regardless of how well, or poorly, Intel was going to do.
    Largely because of crap like this...Intel has been a problem for Apple for many years, and that’s certainly a major part of why they looked into eliminating them. Had Intel been able to keep them happy of course they’d have stayed.
    Disagree. The day the 64-bit A7 SoC launched is the day Apple decided they were going to do their own silicon for Macs. It was a matter of when, not if.  People working in the silicon industry have known this for years.  Apple was moving away from Intel no matter what.  You and the rest can believe what you want.
    I'm sure Apple didn't make that decision until Intel proved they couldn't hack it. If Intel had upgraded their manufacturing infrastructure, Apple would not have pushed Intel aside. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 47
    ndnycndnyc Posts: 17member
    AppleInsider said:
    Some current generation Macs, like the 16-inch MacBook Pro, use 10th-generation Ice Lake-based processors.

    The 16” MBP most certainly, does NOT have a 10th-gen processor.

    The 13” MacBook Pro does.
    The MacBook Air does.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 37 of 47
    GG1GG1 Posts: 445member
    mpantone said:
    viclauyyc said:
    JinTech said:
    And this is why Apple is switching to their own silicon. 
    Apple's switch to ARM is not related to this.  They were going to do it regardless.
    Not true. Apple ditched Motorola for the very similar result. 

    Intel chip today is not much difference than 2 years ago. Just a little faster.

    At the same time, look how much improvement in Apple A series and AMD cpu?
    Nobody is denying that and that's besides the point.  Apple's goal is control all the key technologies of their ecosystem and they were going to switch to their own custom processors regardless of how well, or poorly, Intel was going to do.
    Largely because of crap like this...Intel has been a problem for Apple for many years, and that’s certainly a major part of why they looked into eliminating them. Had Intel been able to keep them happy of course they’d have stayed.
    Disagree. The day the 64-bit A7 SoC launched is the day Apple decided they were going to do their own silicon for Macs. It was a matter of when, not if.  People working in the silicon industry have known this for years.  Apple was moving away from Intel no matter what.  You and the rest can believe what you want.
    My guess is that Apple has been running ARM macOS since their first custom silicon, the A4 (circa 2010). Going 64-bit was a major milestone that confirmed their decision but Apple had already charted this direction years earlier.

    When the 64-bit iPhone SoC debuted, Apple's competitors were shocked into silence. The semiconductor industry knew the writing was on the wall. 

    Apple's lab prototypes have probably outperformed Intel's production hardware for a couple of years. Intel has missed all of their roadmap targets for years and Apple would be very aware of this. They would also be receiving and reviewing various engineering samples of the next generation Intel silicon and it would have been frightfully clear that Intel just couldn't deliver on their commitments.

    Intel made this happen. But it certainly wasn't overnight. This is basically years of Intel ineptitude. Meanwhile AMD emerges as a credible competitor and Nvidia moves past Intel in market capitalization.
    This seems plausible - Apple knew they could compete (based on A7), but the timeline to switch over was fuzzy.

    When Intel kept having fab production delays as well as security vulnerabilities (https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/24/intel-skylake-chip-issues-reportedly-tipping-point-in-apples-silicon-switch ), Intel basically decided the timeline for Apple.
    jdb8167watto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 47
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,393member
    lkrupp said:
    omasou said:
    JinTech said:
    And this is why Apple is switching to their own silicon. 
    Apple's switch to ARM is not related to this.  They were going to do it regardless.
    Apple Si and ARM are two completely different things.
    Apple's Silicon is based on the ARM Instruction Set Architecture.
    So now the geek army wants to argue about ARM vs Apple Silicon. Anything to try and diminish Apple’s achievement in this switch. The haters will insist on calling it Mac on ARM and Apple Silicon a cheap marketing trick to deceive users. Even though Apple’s SOCs will bear little resemblance to processors in other devices. But you go right ahead and bitch about it.
    Dude, chill out. You’re fighting with your own kind. Some people think it is worth mentioning the CPU architecture, since, yeah, Apple’s stuff is ARM-based. That doesn’t mean anyone is acting like Apple aren’t doing a lot of work here in producing their own chips.
    muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 39 of 47
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,393member
    Why is Intel failing to fabricate these 7nm chips at acceptable volume while other chips makers are? Is there something inherently different about Intel’s CPUs that makes yield worse? I also remember reading that 7nm isn’t always actually 7nm (some parts of the chip are and other parts aren’t??).

    Eventually there won’t be anything smaller to make (because physics), and eventually the increase in clock speeds will stop (and that already has almost stopped). We’ve been at the edge of this impending end of CPU “progress” for a while now. I don’t see how switching to another design will put it off more than another few years. Only so many things can be made faster with parallel processing, too.

    Will developers be forced to be write better software, finally? Will “faster” finally plateau, once and for all?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 40 of 47
    omasouomasou Posts: 169member
    omasou said:
    JinTech said:
    And this is why Apple is switching to their own silicon. 
    Apple's switch to ARM is not related to this.  They were going to do it regardless.
    Apple Si and ARM are two completely different things.
    Apple's Silicon is based on the ARM Instruction Set Architecture.
    That statement is grossly oversimplified and misleading and will be used in future marketing by other companies when transition to "ARM".

    Apple Si is the collective name for SoC and SiP processors designed by Apple Inc. using ARM architecture.

    ARM != Apple Si.

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/23/why-the-macs-migration-to-apple-silicon-is-bigger-than-arm

    Apple highlighted a series of features of its custom silicon SoCs that will enhance future Macs. Simply moving to an ARM CPU core itself wasn't even one of them. Most of the advantages Apple emphasized in the move to its own silicon referred to unique, custom-developed features of its SoCs.
    edited July 2020 watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.