Thursday, July 16th 2015
Moore's Law Buckles as Intel's Tick-Tock Cycle Slows Down
Intel co-founder Gordon Moore's claim that transistor counts in microprocessors can be doubled with 2 years, by means of miniaturizing silicon lithography is beginning to buckle. In its latest earnings release, CEO Brian Krzanich said that the company's recent product cycles marked a slowing down of its "tick-tock" product development from 2 years to close to 2.5 years. With the company approaching sub-10 nm scales, it's bound to stay that way.
To keep Moore's Law alive, Intel adopted a product development strategy it calls tick-tock. Think of it as a metronome that give rhythm to the company. Each "tock" marks the arrival of a new micro-architecture, and each "tick" marks its miniaturization to a smaller silicon fab process. Normally, each year is bound to see one of the two in alternation.
"Penryn" was Intel's first 45 nm chip and miniaturization of "Conroe", "Nehalem" was a newer architecture on 45 nm, "Westmere" was its miniaturization to 32 nm, "Sandy Bridge" was a newer architecture on 32 nm, "Ivy Bridge" was its miniaturization to 22 nm, "Haswell" was a new architecture on 22 nm, and "Broadwell" is its miniaturization to 14 nm. "Skylake" is a new architecture on 14 nm. It was all well and good until "Broadwell."
Intel approached "Broadwell" slower than expected, because implementing the 14 nm node took longer. Intel launched its "Haswell Refresh" silicon to hold ground over mid-2014 to mid-2015. To compensate for lost ground, the company allowed "Broadwell" to be cannibalized by an on-schedule "Skylake" launch. The two less-than-memorable Broadwell desktop chips, the i7-5775C and i5-5675C, are tough to find in the retail market.
Krzanich suggested that the company could face a similarly slow product development cycle as it approaches the limits of how small it can make its chips using existing materials. With "Skylake" out this August, it could be a while before you see its miniaturization to 10 nm, codenamed "Cannonlake." IBM has had better luck with sub-10 nm. The company recently demonstrated a 7 nm chip built with a new silicon-germanium alloy substrate. IBM recently sold the division responsible for this in-toto, to GlobalFoundries, the principal foundry partner of AMD. Krzanich concluded that Moore's Law is still "alive and safe," and that it's not the first time it faced difficulties.
To keep Moore's Law alive, Intel adopted a product development strategy it calls tick-tock. Think of it as a metronome that give rhythm to the company. Each "tock" marks the arrival of a new micro-architecture, and each "tick" marks its miniaturization to a smaller silicon fab process. Normally, each year is bound to see one of the two in alternation.
Intel approached "Broadwell" slower than expected, because implementing the 14 nm node took longer. Intel launched its "Haswell Refresh" silicon to hold ground over mid-2014 to mid-2015. To compensate for lost ground, the company allowed "Broadwell" to be cannibalized by an on-schedule "Skylake" launch. The two less-than-memorable Broadwell desktop chips, the i7-5775C and i5-5675C, are tough to find in the retail market.
Krzanich suggested that the company could face a similarly slow product development cycle as it approaches the limits of how small it can make its chips using existing materials. With "Skylake" out this August, it could be a while before you see its miniaturization to 10 nm, codenamed "Cannonlake." IBM has had better luck with sub-10 nm. The company recently demonstrated a 7 nm chip built with a new silicon-germanium alloy substrate. IBM recently sold the division responsible for this in-toto, to GlobalFoundries, the principal foundry partner of AMD. Krzanich concluded that Moore's Law is still "alive and safe," and that it's not the first time it faced difficulties.
47 Comments on Moore's Law Buckles as Intel's Tick-Tock Cycle Slows Down
Yeah, I know we live in a sad world but is it really worth it to lower your level in order for the others to stay next to you ? :rolleyes:
I was there. I made an observation, one that I thought was germane to this thread and also to this unknown person. Funny, he Thanked me. Yet you, feel I did something wrong. Feel free to voice your opinion, but believe me, I know me, you don't, which means I really don't care what you postulate about me.
BTW, his level of "type of conversation" has not proven to be real, in any way I have observed. I plug my computer into a wall socket that does not emit Photons. I don't know anyone else that has even spoken of Photons, in relation to computers. So really, what is it you have an issue with?
Again, not that I care.
Peace out random insulter.
:lovetpu:
I just don't agree your present attitude about that situation.
Save your judgement for the people that you have some contact to.
Perhaps, do something other than troll threads pretending to be Holier Than Thou.
Again, Peace Out. Good Night. :lovetpu:
What intrigues me is what this means to Intel's competitors. Longer times at each process node mean that chip design becomes more important; in contrast, Intel's strength has always been it's technological advantage in manufacturing. If competitors are able to match Intel's manufacturing technology for longer each generation, making chip design the primary differentiation, we could see some real competition.
:p
If people in your world don't need more computing power, the people in my world need it. There are tons of applications where more performance would mean more pleasure and better user experience.
You are so annoying and arrogant, hell.
Edit: I apologize for coming across as arrogant. I shall try to work more on my replies.
Computers are basically the same as they were 30 years ago, with incremental improvements CPU, Memory speed, PCI buses, USB speeds, etc. The computer industry has been on a long term plan to milk the consumers for every incremental upgrades. GPU makers make a card that is 25% faster than the last and we all go nuts but we still cant run 4K properly. We still cant run 4K higher than 60Hz.
When there are only 2 players in any industry, the consumers get screwed.
www.techrepublic.com/article/silicon-photonics-will-revolutionize-data-centers-in-2015/#ftag=YHF87e0214
I know this is a few months old but, It popped up on my Yahoo front page today.
Effing weird? Or, What?
:laugh:
Side note: Intel's would be able to dedicate less die space to GPU (or have better performing GPUs,) if their GPU design wasn't a bastardized x86 core.
That is what I am seeing right here. The "do-it-yourself" desktop model I like is being forgotten.
I am sad for those people who buy computers from ACER, LENOVO, HP, DELL and family. Maintenance and repair can be a real pain an ultra expensive on those closed, proprietary models.
But the normal people usually just realizes that when they encounter a problem that needs to be repaired. :shadedshu:
Just my opinion. :rolleyes: