News Intel Announces Delay to 7nm Processors, Now One Year Behind Expectations

[Admin]

Intel announced that its 7nm process is one year behind its expectations, so its 7nm processors will be delayed.

Intel Announces Delay to 7nm Processors, Now One Year Behind Expectations : Read more

 

[Dave Haynie]

Yikes! Intel bugged their 10nm process long enough to fall behind, despite probably having the best 14nm process around. Full control of process was Intel's superpower, going back to the CISC vs RISC wars of the 1980s-1990s. Kind of a shame... though I've had AMD in this horse-race for quite some time. But I pretty much always like the underdog!

 

[InvalidError]

A couple years ago when 10nm was slipping, Intel said the lessons it'll learn in pushing ahead with 10nm despite setbacks would be useful for pushing 7nm afterward. However, Intel still hasn't fully sorted 10nm out and I'm guessing that some of the lessons learned don't port over to 7nm quite as well as Intel hoped they would.

Looks like Intel may not have much for people to get excited about until 2022.

 

[passivecool]

poor intel. slept for ten years then woke up with a hangover.

 

[JamesSneed]

A couple years ago when 10nm was slipping, Intel said the lessons it'll learn in pushing ahead with 10nm despite setbacks would be useful for pushing 7nm afterward. However, Intel still hasn't fully sorted 10nm out and I'm guessing that some of the lessons learned don't port over to 7nm quite as well as Intel hoped they would.

Looks like Intel may not have much for people to get excited about until 2022.

I think moving to EUV is a huge change and they are having a hard time getting the yields up on EUV. They were being too optimistic once again. You know this is why TSMC did the initial 7nm where only some up front processes were 7nm rest was 12-14nm. Then they improved that process my having more processes use 7nm. Now TSMC are using EUV for 5nm. This is the lesson Intel needs to learn, baby steps on node improvements going forward so its small evolutionary steps not revolutionary steps. Things are way to freaking complicated now to make big leaps. This is why TSMC is ahead now. This is the missing lesson.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I think moving to EUV is a huge change and they are having a hard time getting the yields up on EUV. They were being too optimistic once again. You know this is why TSMC did the initial 7nm where only some up front processes were 7nm rest was 12-14nm. Then they improved that process. Now TSMC are using EUV for 5nm. This is the lesson Intel needs to learn, baby steps on node improvements going forward so its small evolutionary steps not revolutionary steps. Things are way to freaking complicated now to make big leaps. This is why TSMC is ahead now. This is the missing lesson.

Remember the 'Children's Fable/Story' of the "Tortoise & the Hare"?
Slow & steady wins the race!

TSMC, was improving incrementally, while Intel decided to shoot for as far as they can like Icarus.

We all know what happened to Icarus wings.

 

[RobertCharon]

A couple years ago when 10nm was slipping, Intel said the lessons it'll learn in pushing ahead with 10nm despite setbacks would be useful for pushing 7nm afterward. However, Intel still hasn't fully sorted 10nm out and I'm guessing that some of the lessons learned don't port over to 7nm quite as well as Intel hoped they would.

Looks like Intel may not have much for people to get excited about until 2022.

Listening to Intel 2Q Earnings Conference...
Intel is touting that they have the most technically advanced packaging technology... While their new 7nm process is technically screwed.
I could be wrong but that seems like wrong priorities </s>
Ridiculous!

 

[RobertCharon]

Listening to Q&A now.

Wow, that was some BS response from Swan (Intel CEO).
I guess that was expected from an MBA instead of an engineer.

 

[Makaveli]

hmm ya I guess time to buy more AMD stock lol

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Listening to Q&A now.

Wow, that was some BS response from Swan (Intel CEO).
I guess that was expected from an MBA instead of an engineer.

I think Intel shot themselves in the foot when they fired Brian Krzanich from the CEO position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Krzanich

Brian Krzanich was a Chemistry Major and worked as a process engineer in Intel's Fab's.
He worked his way up to CEO position, but he's still a Chemistry guy at the core.

Far more useful then Bob Swan who's just a glorified Middle Manager with a MBA degree.

 

[thisisaname]

However, Intel still hasn't fully sorted 10nm out and I'm guessing that some of the lessons learned don't port over to 7nm quite as well as Intel hoped they would.

When they say lessons learned you can be pretty sure they are not going to be.

 

[mdd1963]

Intel is behind on a die-shrink?

What a shocker.

 

[jeremyj_83]

I think Intel shot themselves in the foot when they fired Brian Krzanich from the CEO position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Krzanich

Brian Krzanich was a Chemistry Major and worked as a process engineer in Intel's Fab's.
He worked his way up to CEO position, but he's still a Chemistry guy at the core.

Far more useful then Bob Swan who's just a glorified Middle Manager with a MBA degree.

Not uncommon for companies is the USA to have CEOs from marketing. In Germany most CEOs come from R&D. The difference comes in how you want to make money. There are two different ways to do that, market an inferior product as amazing and hope people believe you or make a better product. The first focuses on short term profit over long term growth. The second is better in the long run. Not surprisingly CEOs from marketing focus on the first idea and those from R&D focus on the second.

 

[DavidC1]

I think Intel shot themselves in the foot when they fired Brian Krzanich from the CEO position.

Are you serious?!

Brian Kraznich has been the worst CEO ever. He should have been kicked out earlier, better yet never have been CEO. Numerous accounts confirmed this.

 

[Phaaze88]

So they need even more time to bounce back.

 

[escksu]

The good news for Intel is that their 10nm is pretty much on par with TSMC's 7nm. The bad news is that they are still not into volume 10nm yet...

Also, smaller doesn't mean its faster. I believe we have read rumours like Intel's 10nm is slower than their 14nm ( can't clock as high). WE are now into a size where problems with going smaller are becoming more and more apparent. So, its not longer going smaller to go faster and cooling. If its not properly designed, it can end up worse.

 

[digitalgriffin]

My prediction based on AMD p2e, margin growth and share price growth
By 2023
AMD makert cap equal Intel

NVIDIA starts to feel heat. R&D budget increaes significantly for RTG. They are trying to get ARM and cant clear regulatory hurtles as they would become a monopoly (nvidia likes that idea as they are ruthless). Possesing ARM would have clear benefits to forcing partners to incorporate NVIDIA eco system from servers to phones through licensing. Lawsuits from competitors will stop this. (Could threaten apple and google's plans)

I don't know if the numbers would work but nvidia may buy out excess fab production at tsmc just to slow down competitors is also a possibility. (Even if they don't use full cap.)

 

[InvalidError]

Also, smaller doesn't mean its faster. I believe we have read rumours like Intel's 10nm is slower than their 14nm ( can't clock as high).

We don't really have numbers for anything other than Ice Lake to make speed assumptions on and while doing so, you need to keep in mind that Ice Lake's scheduler is 45% more complex than Sky Lake based on the re-order queue being 320-deep on ICL vs 224-deep on SL. So, assuming the critical path is in the scheduler, Ice Lake clocking 10% slower despite 45% increased complexity means the process is actually ~35% faster - it allows cramming 35% more circuitry without compromising on timing closure.

 

[digitalgriffin]

We don't really have numbers for anything other than Ice Lake to make speed assumptions on and while doing so, you need to keep in mind that Ice Lake's scheduler is 45% more complex than Sky Lake based on the re-order queue being 320-deep on ICL vs 224-deep on SL. So, assuming the critical path is in the scheduler, Ice Lake clocking 10% slower despite 45% increased complexity means the process is actually ~35% faster - it allows cramming 35% more circuitry without compromising on timing closure.

That all depends if the ipc offsets the clock loss.

 

[spongiemaster]

"The company's 7nm-based CPU product timing is shifting approximately six months relative to prior expectations. The primary driver is the yield of Intel's 7nm process, which based on recent data, is now trending approximately twelve months behind the company's internal target."

What? You're twelve months behind yield targets so you're moving the release schedule back only 6 months? How does that work? Why would anyone believe you'll be able to make up six months on this schedule when you're 4 years and counting behind on 10nm? And what about what you said six months ago?

https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/intel-return-2-2-5-year-process-cadence-2020-01/

“and shortly after launching 10, our expectations is we will have our first 7 nanometer product launch in the latter part about 2021 with CPUs to closely follow. So 10 is ramping. We will go to 10+ for clients and to 7 on a two year cadence in 2021.”

So you were on schedule 6 months ago for 7nm, and then in 6 months you fell behind 12 months and are delaying 7nm? You knew 6 months ago when you made this bs claim that you were behind on 7nm and couldn't achieve this schedule. If I was an Intel investor, I'd be pretty pissed at Bob Swan about now.

 

[InvalidError]

That all depends if the ipc offsets the clock loss.

If the argument is "10nm being [slower than] 14nm" as was the case in the post I was responding to, then 10nm is definitely a good bit faster than 14nm process-wise and IPC vs clocks between CPUs made on each is a separate story.

 

[Soaptrail]

Intel is behind on a die-shrink?

What a shocker.

Too bad no one could have seen this coming!

What? You're twelve months behind yield targets so you're moving the release schedule back only 6 months? How does that work? Why would anyone believe you'll be able to make up six months on this schedule when you're 4 years and counting behind on 10nm? And what about what you said six months ago?

https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/intel-return-2-2-5-year-process-cadence-2020-01/



So you were on schedule 6 months ago for 7nm, and then in 6 months you fell behind 12 months and are delaying 7nm? You knew 6 months ago when you made this bs claim that you were behind on 7nm and couldn't achieve this schedule. If I was an Intel investor, I'd be pretty pissed at Bob Swan about now.

Something is seriously wrong at Intel, they have a huge R&D budget and yet cannot get 10mm to work for the umpteenth time. This stinks of a leadership/management issue and I am not confident they can right the ship, specially with Apple going ARM and Nvidia could jump into the fray.

 

[watzupken]

The good news for Intel is that their 10nm is pretty much on par with TSMC's 7nm. The bad news is that they are still not into volume 10nm yet...

Also, smaller doesn't mean its faster. I believe we have read rumours like Intel's 10nm is slower than their 14nm ( can't clock as high). WE are now into a size where problems with going smaller are becoming more and more apparent. So, its not longer going smaller to go faster and cooling. If its not properly designed, it can end up worse.

I am not sure when you mentioned on par, what aspect are you implying? I feel from a density standpoint, 10nm was supposed to be better than TSMC's 7nm. But from a yield standpoint, I feel it is still quite far behind. While yield has improved from the first generation 10nm fab, it still does not look good. Which is why I feel Intel is keen to quickly move on to 7nm.

 

[watzupken]

Are you serious?!

Brian Kraznich has been the worst CEO ever. He should have been kicked out earlier, better yet never have been CEO. Numerous accounts confirmed this.

I won't say he is the worst CEO, but I don't think Brian did a good job handling the 10nm delays. Perhaps he knew about it late as well (not sure about this), but he cannot shrug off responsibility when the product is late for almost 4 to 5 years. I feel Intel has grown too big to be nimble.

 

[RefCat]

I think Intel shot themselves in the foot when they fired Brian Krzanich from the CEO position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Krzanich

Brian Krzanich was a Chemistry Major and worked as a process engineer in Intel's Fab's.
He worked his way up to CEO position, but he's still a Chemistry guy at the core.

Far more useful then Bob Swan who's just a glorified Middle Manager with a MBA degree.

No, he (BK) shot himself in the foot when he let the process run off the track while he was CEO. The mess was created with him in charge, why would you let him hang around to fix a multi-billion dollar mess he either created or let happen.

Whether he was the worst is a toss up between him and Otelini. Both ran the company horribly.