News Intel Fixes 7nm, Meteor Lake and Granite Rapids Coming in 2023

[TerryLaze]

intel is going to have to suck up its loss over the last 7 years and cry.

Let's all click Like to share our prayers for Intel to make it through these dark times....
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/revenue

Intel Annual Revenue (Millions of US $)
2020	$77,867
2019	$71,965
2018	$70,848
2017	$62,761
2016	$59,387
2015	$55,355
2014	$55,870

Intel Annual Net Income (Millions of US $)
2020	$20,899
2019	$21,048
2018	$21,053
2017	$9,601
2016	$10,316
2015	$11,420
2014	$11,704

 

[InvalidError]

Let's all click Like to share our prayers for Intel to make it through these dark times....
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/revenue

Most companies would kill to get anywhere near 30% net since 15% is where you'd start facing fierce competition in an open competitive market. RIP Intel for having only twice the net margin of a typical healthy company

 

[2Be_or_Not2Be]

I do hope Intel does better & keeps their own fabs going long-term. Competition is good for both business & consumer, and I don't want to see fabs go down to just 1-2 big players (TSMC and Samsung).

On a related note, I hope Intel buys back the 3DXPoint fab in Lehi, UT from Micron. Maybe with a new focus on lowering production costs, they can make it more profitable & more prevalent in the marketplace. (yes, I know they sold their share originally, but one can hope!)

 

[Conahl]

Let's all click Like to share our prayers for Intel to make it through these dark times....
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/revenue
Intel Annual Revenue
(Millions of US $)2020$77,8672019$71,9652018$70,8482017$62,7612016$59,3872015$55,3552014$55,870 Intel Annual Net Income
(Millions of US $)2020$20,8992019$21,0482018$21,0532017$9,6012016$10,3162015$11,4202014$11,704

oh look more proof that terrylaze has stock in intel, why else would he keep posting intels earnings ? they may be making money for your stock value, but thats about it, lets see how well the dud that looks to be rocket lake sells....

 

[jimmysmitty]

If we measure how advanced nodes are by transistor density, Intel's 10nm is actually better than TSMC and Samsung's first generation 7nm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_nm_process#7_nm_process_nodes_and_process_offerings)

Intel hopes to achieve ~237 MTr/mm^2 with their 7nm process (https://www.anandtech.com/show/13405/intel-10nm-cannon-lake-and-core-i3-8121u-deep-dive-review/3), which if they do, would blow away TSMC's current 5nm process at ~173MTr/mm^2. Of course two years will give TSMC to catch up, but still.

So I wonder if Intel was simply biting off more than they could chew.

Intel always bites off more than they could chew. Their process tech is always pushing harder than any other.

Even with two years though TSMCs 5nm probably wont beat Intels 7nm in density. They may get to what they call 3nm but I am sure they will run into the same issues Intel is at smaller nodes and higher densities. Honestly I am surprised we haven't heard more news about sourcing new materials to replace silicon. A couple years ago that was a pretty major thing they were working on, Intel especially, and graphene was a major material that might be a suitable replacement to go beyond 5nm as thats where a lot of issues would be present. Hell Intel was also working on designs that would have multiple inactive cores that would activate if a core died since smaller process nodes have that possibility.

I just want Intel to be equally competitive. I also want this chip shortage to go away as its stifling competition as are crypto miners and scalpers. When you can't get a product for MSRP it causes the market to inflate beyond what it should. 8 core CPUs should be as cheap as a 4 core was but is twice or more what I paid for a Q6600 years ago.

On the ther side Intel is also going to invest another $10 billion into FABS here in Arizona which is good for us. I expect they will probably put that either into existing FABs in Chandler or build new ones in Chandler. Good for me since I live there and hopefully it helps expand their capacity as well.

 

[TerryLaze]

oh look more proof that terrylaze has stock in intel, why else would he keep posting intels earnings ? they may be making money for your stock value, but thats about it, lets see how well the dud that looks to be rocket lake sells....

Your answer is in the part I quoted, any person with any amount of intelligence would understand that, apparently that does not apply to you.

 

[Conahl]

what ever, most here i think all ready know how much you love intel, and are very bias towards them, and that you obviously have stock in intel. common sense, doesnt seem to apply to you, or objectivity

 

[InvalidError]

Honestly I am surprised we haven't heard more news about sourcing new materials to replace silicon.

I'm not surprised, every new material has its own gotchas. The key problems with graphene is that you need it to be practically perfect and to be able to dope it with atomic precision by selectively knocking out carbon atoms and replacing them with something like phosphor. It'll be a very long time before atomic-scale manipulation becomes a cost-effective manufacturing method.

Most other materials have issues such as either being too brittle to make wafers larger than 100-200mm or requiring significant amounts of expensive elements. Silicon will likely stick around for the next 20+ years, even if only as a mechanical support for more exotic materials.

 

[ginthegit]

Let's all click Like to share our prayers for Intel to make it through these dark times....
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/revenue

Intel Annual Revenue (Millions of US $)
2020	$77,867
2019	$71,965
2018	$70,848
2017	$62,761
2016	$59,387
2015	$55,355
2014	$55,870

Intel Annual Net Income (Millions of US $)
2020	$20,899
2019	$21,048
2018	$21,053
2017	$9,601
2016	$10,316
2015	$11,420
2014	$11,704

That's good to hear. I support AMD, but recently they behave similarly to Intel when it had leading position.
Competition from will keep them on their toes. I'm looking forward to Intel's APU's in particular. If their design is better and they can keep power consumpion closer to advertised TDP I'm switching to team blue.

Agreed with the new change in the attitude from AMD.

Intel is taking a thrashing in reputation either way

 

[TerryLaze]

what ever, most here i think all ready know how much you love intel, and are very bias towards them, and that you obviously have stock in intel. common sense, doesnt seem to apply to you, or objectivity

Wait, so me listing off literally the exact numbers that intel publishes is not objective?

But you believe that me saying that intel is making a lot of money will influence people to buy more intel...because?! they will feel bad for them?! How does that make any sense?

Really, your only argument is that I like intel and that I'm so biased that I list real numbers together with links to sources...

 

[waltc3]

If Intel has "fixed" 7nm production, why is it still two years out?...😉 Doesn't sound fixed at all. And "fixed" for what? Fixed for Intel's presently warmed-over massively tweaked +++++ architectures? That's not enough. Intel is way, way behind, and pulling some old geezer out of retirement--the old geezer that led Intel into the Itanium debacle, where AMD won again, even then--is not a solution. It simply points out that no one at Intel really knows what to do or really understands their problems. For so long has Intel operated in a vacuum as a monopoly supplier that the company as it sits today simply doesn't know how to function in a mega-competitive market such as the one it faces with AMD today. Gelsinger doesn't himself know what to do. What Intel has needed for the last 3-4 years is dynamite x86 CPU products--competitive x86 CPU products. And Intel does not have those. It's not just 7nm that Intel needs--it's a massively new, ground up x86 CPU architecture--one that doesn't look like Swiss Cheese from a security standpoint--and one that is even close to being as fast as what AMD is currently selling.

Seems like every time Intel begins to make real progress the impetus has come from AMD, ironically, in the form of competition. It was AMD who put Intel on the x86-64 track and the DDR-SDRAM track--when all Intel had to offer was Itanium & RDRAM. Best man won then--AMD. But this time, it does not appear that AMD is going to give Intel any room at all to catch up, so Intel will find keeping up with AMD today will be an order of magnitude more difficult than it was during the time of the Athlon/A64/Opteron--because AMD is keeping the R&D pedal to the metal, and there won't be a post-Opteron lapse from AMD that gave Intel the time it needed to catch up and forge ahead of AMD then. AMD has no intention of stopping its forward progress, and AMD has something Intel still doesn't have--solid five-year & ten-year plans for architectures--each one materially better than the last. Intel needs so much more than a couple of horribly expensive FABs it's not funny. AMD has direction and vision--Intel simply doesn't.

 

[InvalidError]

If Intel has "fixed" 7nm production, why is it still two years out?...😉 Doesn't sound fixed at all. And "fixed" for what? Fixed for Intel's presently warmed-over massively tweaked +++++ architectures? That's not enough.

It is two years out because it takes a while to buy equipment, prepare the site to install it, get it shipped, installed, calibrated, run some test wafers and run through qualifications before mass production. If Intel's 7nm goals are as aggressive as its original 10nm goals were, it should be on par with TSMC's 5nm.

Process names are only that, names. Intel's 14nm++++ is almost as good as its 10nm was supposed to start from and Intel's 10nm++ is giving TSMC's 7nm a run for its money. No point in obsessing over what the different companies' processes are called, results are what matters.

 

[jimmysmitty]

what ever, most here i think all ready know how much you love intel, and are very bias towards them, and that you obviously have stock in intel. common sense, doesnt seem to apply to you, or objectivity

I think the point is that with current shortages and even AMD doing vastly better competition wise than they have in years Intel is still selling enough to make plenty of money. And they still will with RL. AMD can't produce as many chips as Intel can as they are dependent on TSMC and TSMC has a lot of customers. Intel has all their own FAB capacity.

I'm not surprised, every new material has its own gotchas. The key problems with graphene is that you need it to be practically perfect and to be able to dope it with atomic precision by selectively knocking out carbon atoms and replacing them with something like phosphor. It'll be a very long time before atomic-scale manipulation becomes a cost-effective manufacturing method.

Most other materials have issues such as either being too brittle to make wafers larger than 100-200mm or requiring significant amounts of expensive elements. Silicon will likely stick around for the next 20+ years, even if only as a mechanical support for more exotic materials.

Could be a good in between but Silicon is reaching its limits. Hopefully they have some sort of breakthrough.

 

[Conahl]

Wait, so me listing off literally the exact numbers that intel publishes is not objective?

not really, cause most of the time, it seems you cant see passed what intels PR and marketing, are telling you, and you just repeat it, at times word for word

Really, your only argument is that I like intel and that I'm so biased that I list real numbers together with links to sources...

the argument is, the FACT that no matter what one posts, even with links, and proof against what you claim, you ALWAYS find a way to twist and spin the words around, to make intel look better then they are. i have even seen posts like this, where you just down play it, refute it as garbage, say the source is bias, etc, and link to sources that show some cherry picked graph to prove your point.

here is something else for you to refute, and i KNOW you will, IF Zen 3 was in better supply, and wasnt sold out, some of the sales intel is getting, would of gone to amd. example, no one i know is even considering intel for the upgrade they are doing right now, they all are waiting for zen 3 to be in stock. for the plain reason, they feel, over all, AMD has the better cpu currently, then intel.

case in point, the article posted on here about Puget systems, you practically down played the whole article, if 3 years ago, 100% of the systems they sold where intel based, then as of Nov 2020, only half of their systems are intel, that there, shows lost sales to intel. yet you twist the words around, and said " the CPUs that retailers offer are already sold units that belong to the retailers now and the retailers decide if they made enough money from the older models to run special sales to clear out before the new models arrives. " while intel may have sold their chips to puget, as you state, the fact is now 50% of those chips are now unsold, and cause they are not selling, puget has to discount them in order to sell them, which ties in with this quote from you " Each company has their own logistics and some sell their rest stock for cheaper to make space for more profitable new stock " which in this case, is AMD. that shows intel is NOT selling as well as they once were, no matter how you twist and spin it.

 

[TerryLaze]

here is something else for you to refute, and i KNOW you will, IF Zen 3 was in better supply, and wasnt sold out, some of the sales intel is getting, would of gone to amd. example, no one i know is even considering intel for the upgrade they are doing right now, they all are waiting for zen 3 to be in stock. for the plain reason, they feel, over all, AMD has the better cpu currently, then intel.

Why would I refute that?!
My whole point is that intel is making twice the money now then in the time before Zen, intel could lose half their current earnings and still not care.
Same with puget, intel is still making twice the money than before so why should they care?
Intel is only going to start caring when their earnings are going to drop below a certain point, not when they are on a record high month after month.