Intel's New Roadmap Revealed: 10nm Ice Lake In 2020, 14nm Cooper Lake 2019

Status
Not open for further replies.
So basically, the problems with their 10nm process is worse than we thought. Almost seems like they had to backtrack and start over to some extent.

I was expecting 10nm sometime in 2019, but being pushed to 2020 is a serious delay. Wish Intel would just come clean and say what the problems are.

Guess we have 2+ more years of feature and incremental updates. Perhaps Intel will finally catch up to AMD on core count.
 

valeman2012

Honorable
Apr 10, 2012
966
0
11,010
21


Does not seem that AMD 7nm beats Intel 14nm still how come?
 

SkyBill40

Honorable


Intel arguably lost their market lead probably two years ago when AMD started to make genuine headway with the Ryzen platform. AMD's success has forced Intel into a panic mode of sorts and had that not happened, a lot of what has been forced may not have come to pass at all. For evidence of that, look how long it took Intel to advance beyond 4 cores CPUs for the consumer market. Intel has rested comfortably on their laurels for so long they failed to notice they had been ignited from beneath.

There is a likelihood, albeit small, that Intel never regains their market lead without a significant breakthrough to push them ahead. Times are looking truly desperate for Intel and what comes of that will be telling.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

10nm in 2018 could already be considered a serious delay since 10nm was originally expected back in 2016. Problems started with the initial slip-ups when Broadwell got delayed by a year due to issues with 14nm which degenerated to tick-tock-tock-tock-tock-tock-tock-tock-tock-tock development cycle afterward due to on-going delays with 10nm.

If AMD manages to deliver the expected results from Zen 2 / Ryzen 3 next year, Intel will be in an uncomfortable spot.
 

Groveling_Wyrm

Distinguished
Dec 11, 2002
1,630
16
20,165
115


Intel hasn't lost any market share lead to anyone in years. Could it happen? Yes, Will it happen, probably not. Intel puts more money into their R&D than AMD earns in a given year. That is how big Intel really is, and how small AMD really is.

If Intel really wanted to push AMD to its limits, all they would have to do is start lowering the prices of their processors. This would force AMD to lower its prices as well, and lower its profits to not much if anything at all. Intel has the money to withstand the couple of years it would take to make AMD go bankrupt.

Now that ARM is producing CPU's, AMD doesn't need to be around in order to keep Intel from a monopoly. To me, THAT is the bigger worry. You mentioned the years it took to get away from 4 core, well.....we could see that again.....
 
This is going to make for a rather interesting 2019. Lisa Su's move to TSMC for EPYC may turn out to be one of the most well thought plans in AMD's history if it lets them capitalize on on 7nm sooner. AMD could own the growth in the data center market in 2019 if things work out as planned. Stocking up on popcorn for 2019.
 

bit_user

Splendid
Herald
Jan 20, 2010
4,304
5
22,815
12

In a very real sense, it's to be expected.

Since Sandybridge-E, Intel has updated their server socket every second generation of CPUs. This is simply a continuation of that cadence, although I realize the turmoil created by their 10 nm delays mean it was far from a given.
 

bit_user

Splendid
Herald
Jan 20, 2010
4,304
5
22,815
12

Exactly what do you want them to say? If you're not a semiconductor process engineer, you probably wouldn't understand, meanwhile the information could probably help competitors.

They've already updated roadmaps, so we have to be content with that.
 


I highly suspect Intel is having to cut over to using EUV before outing any high performance chips on 10nm. The push out this far really speaks to something major like that.
 

bit_user

Splendid
Herald
Jan 20, 2010
4,304
5
22,815
12

I think we already know they're not?

I dunno. The "why" doesn't matter to me.
 

bit_user

Splendid
Herald
Jan 20, 2010
4,304
5
22,815
12

You forget that, by using multiple small dies, AMD has a very real cost advantage. If Intel tried to undercut EPYC, they might have to sell them below cost, which is an illegal practice known as "dumping".

AMD found a weak spot in Intel's strategy, and then got lucky with timing. In the short term, there's not a whole lot Intel can do about it.
 

computerguy72

Distinguished
Sep 22, 2011
179
0
18,690
1
TSMC and GF have made lots of progress but I think many people think the 10nm process for example from TSMC, GF, Samsung and Intel are somehow the same. I think they all have made great strides to close the gap with Intel on process technology but they aren't there just yet. Intel's 10nm process is 10% denser than both GF and TSMC's 7nm process and double Samsung's 10nm. TSMC's 12nm process has the same overall density as it's 16nm process and both of those are 40% worse than Intels 14nm process.

I think at the current rate other foundries processes will equalize with Intel in the next few years but they aren't there yet.
 

TCA_ChinChin

Reputable
Feb 15, 2015
118
4
4,715
6


Agreed. Many people don't take into consideration that each company names their processes however they want with only broad notions of performance and size relative to within their own architecture. But in this case, GF and TSMC have already started demonstrating their "7nm" server chip technology through AMD's Epyc line while Intel still is struggling to do much of anything in their "10nm" process. Furthermore, there are rumors that Intel's 10nm process is being scaled back to something more like a 12nm process, shrinking the already neglible gap between the actual physical sizes of GF/TSMC "7nm" and Intel "10nm". Take that with a large dose of salt though cause I read that on Semiaccurate...
 


We don't know, Intel won't say. It only matters because if that is the case the dates are likely best case scenarios.
 


Many people don't know and those same people probably don't care. Even people like you that claim to know are saying incorrect information. I should say this is is likely wrong, but honestly nobody knows:
"Intel's 10nm process is 10% denser than both GF and TSMC's 7nm process and double Samsung's 10nm."

On paper Intel's 10nm and Globalfoundries 7nm look very similar it could go either way as to who has better denisites.
Can read the summary at the end of this, nothing has changed since it was written since we still don't have working samples of Gloflos 7nm:
https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/7191-iedm-2017-intel-versus-globalfoundries-leading-edge.html
 

bennie101

Distinguished
Feb 13, 2007
136
0
18,710
7
Yes sir a few more motherboard upgrades to do if you stick with Intel. Everyone knows that every chip they put out has to have a new board so will we have a x499 x599 xe699 boards? I think so the money train is rolling down the tracks Go Intel good job!
 

mlee 2500

Reputable
Oct 20, 2014
274
0
4,780
0


Yeah I'm still in that same i7-3770K boat that you were in, except I haven't jumped ship yet.

Been tempted, but the single core performance only improves by ~30%, and I've found that I get bigger bang for my buck by simply upgrading my GPU every few years.

Of course that latest GPU might be getting a bit throttled by the motherboard at this point, but I haven't had any issues or limitations in the sort of games I tend to play (Total War, XCOM etc), so I'm resisting the temptation for another year or so.

It sucks though because I really WANT to build a new PC. I even went out and bought my next machines new Fractal R6 case, and it's just sitting there...mocking me...as we both wait for Intel to finally come out with something that will make the whole rebuild worthwhile.

I've never had a generation of CPU last me as long, and continue to provide sufficient performance, as that 3770K from 2012. It's absolutely crazy.
 

computerguy72

Distinguished
Sep 22, 2011
179
0
18,690
1
To JamesSneed:
We do indeed have the process information:
Intel 10nm process is: CPP 54, M2 Pitch 44, density MTx/mm = 106.1
GF 7nm process is: CPP 56, M2 Pitch 40, density MTx/mm = 98.21
TSMC 7nm process is: CPP 57, M2 PItch 40, density MTx/mm = 96.49
 

SkyBill40

Honorable


And those figures come from where, exactly? Provide your citation as you should have when you made the post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS