Intel needs to meet demand first, then worry about 10nm and beyond. Anything they can do to pump out more CPUs of any kind is helpful to all consumers.

chodaboy19Intel needs to meet demand first, then worry about 10nm and beyond. Anything they can do to pump out more CPUs of any kind is helpful to all consumers.

With AMD gaining market share by the minute, how come that Intel suddenly has no production capacity ? Smells fishy ?

Intel's fooling the dopes still.

newtekie1If you read between the lines of the 2014 article, when they shut down the Costa Rica factory, it basically boils down to Intel asked Costa Rica for a bunch of tax breaks and Costa Rica didn't give them what they wanted. So it was cheaper to shut down the factory in Costa Rica and open new factories in Asia. The Asian governments likely gave them huge tax incentives to set up shop there.

Labor is cheap when you get it from "reeducation" camps XD. I'll never believe a word of their BS, b/c they've been abusing overseas employees for decades (like nearly every tech company, tons use actual slave labor).

ARFWith AMD gaining market share by the minute, how come that Intel suddenly has no production capacity ? Smells fishy ?

Because they can't charge 400 for quad cores anymore and only dual core mobile. They literally lost half of their capacity.

TheGuruStudBecause they can't charge 400 for quad cores anymore and only dual core mobile. They literally lost half of their capacity.

If it is cheaper not to produce, or the average size of the sold dies increased so much that they indeed can produce less CPUs from the same wafer starts.

OctopussSomeone explain why would a company abandon a "factory" that likely cost billions of dollars to build only to rebuild it in Asia (at least that's the impression I get out of reading this and the linked article).

There are likely many factors. First, they need to look at the facility to see if it can handle the next node. They need to evaluate the cost to retool, and it might actually come to the point that an entirely new facility is required, as this is the case in other fabs elsewhere. I’ve heard these are very elaborate buildings, with floating floors and clean rooms and the like. It may not be as simple as just swapping out some machines—the entire building may need extensive modification to work with newer equipment. No doubt politics and tax rates are a factor too. Even something as simple as high utility rates or poor power quality could be a consideration.

Darmok N JaladThere are likely many factors. First, they need to look at the facility to see if it can handle the next node. They need to evaluate the cost to retool, and it might actually come to the point that an entirely new facility is required, as this is the case in other fabs elsewhere. I’ve heard these are very elaborate buildings, with floating floors and clean rooms and the like. It may not be as simple as just swapping out some machines—the entire building may need extensive modification to work with newer equipment. No doubt politics and tax rates are a factor too. Even something as simple as high utility rates or poor power quality could be a consideration.

At the time of the decision, they didn't know that they would need the same node. So, no retooling is required.

I thought that when someone like Intel makes so significant investment in a developing country, they would possess much greater influence on the government.
I mean the "simple" things "high utility rates" and "poor power quality" is pretty much a consequence of the politics of the given country, as well.

gamefoo21My best Intel silicon almost always came from Costa Rica.

I never thought about that, but looking back on it, the same goes for me.

ARFIntel's N10 is 2.5 times denser than its N14! And as dense as TSMC's N7.

www.techcenturion.com/7nm-10nm-14nm-fabrication#nbspnbspnbspnbsp7nm_vs_10nm_vs_12nm_vs_14nm_Transistor_Densities

I don't think you know how to read that graph correctly.

From the very same article you link, here is a chart, with density rankings, and the very important note. It simply reinforces what I stated - Intel 14nm > 12nm TSMC/GloFlo/Samsung, but their 10nm is not superior to 7nm.

*Intel’s 10nm’s density is based on their estimation for Cannon Lake in 2018. The actual density for the current Ice Lake chips could be much lower. If Intel ever brings 10nm to their HPC products, the density could be very close to TSMC’s 7nm HPC Process which powers Zen 2 and Navi 10.

Notice how intel is below 7nm+ and 5nm, and is just barely ~ same density on 10nm *but only in non HPC use cases*. In other words, for mobile low power chips. And it's based on what Intel stated, not facts, unlike the others who have shipping products (except 5nm).

ARFAt the time of the decision, they didn't know that they would need the same node. So, no retooling is required.

I thought that when someone like Intel makes so significant investment in a developing country, they would possess much greater influence on the government.
I mean the "simple" things "high utility rates" and "poor power quality" is pretty much a consequence of the politics of the given country, as well.

What I’m getting at is they might have elected to shutter the plant because they knew it wouldn’t qualify for retooling. Intel planned to be on 10nm long ago, and my guess is Intel didn’t expect this fab to be needed any longer to meet orders.

RandallFlaggbut their 10nm is not superior to 7nm.

So, who said that Intel's N10 is "superior" ?

ARFIf it is cheaper not to produce, or the average size of the sold dies increased so much that they indeed can produce less CPUs from the same wafer starts.

Their monolithic die strategy might be reaching its end game. An MCM design seems far more efficient in the current high core count market. It's obviously working well for AMD since they switched to it. Of course, I'm surprised that Intel hasn't been marketing about how AMD's processors aren't true "8 Cores" or whatever, just like AMD did to Intel back when Intel was using MCM and AMD was monolithic...

The other issue is still their huge GPU that they include. If you look at a 9900K die shot, the GPU is taking up about as much silicon as 6 CPU cores. That's a lot of real estate just for display output. Granted, I like that their CPUs have an iGPU(and won't buy a F series that have the GPU disable but it's still there). But I think they are making it too big to get performance that people don't need. Shrink it down, make it the bare minimum to display the desktop and play youtube videos.

dicktracyThey already have better architectures than AMD.

No, they definitely don't. However the software is still optimized for Intel's CPU's, including the bloody compilers...

newtekie1Their monolithic die strategy might be reaching its end game. An MCM design seems far more efficient in the current high core count market. It's obviously working well for AMD since they switched to it. Of course, I'm surprised that Intel hasn't been marketing about how AMD's processors aren't true "8 Cores" or whatever, just like AMD did to Intel back when Intel was using MCM and AMD was monolithic...

The other issue is still their huge GPU that they include. If you look at a 9900K die shot, the GPU is taking up about as much silicon as 6 CPU cores. That's a lot of real estate just for display output. Granted, I like that their CPUs have an iGPU(and won't buy a F series that have the GPU disable but it's still there). But I think they are making it too big to get performance that people don't need. Shrink it down, make it the bare minimum to display the desktop and play youtube videos.

You... have a point. Nobody is really playing games with that iGPU, and if they are, it's certainly not optimal.

...What was wrong with having the GPU on the motherboard? Sure, it's probably faster to have it in the CPU, but that would give everybody a choice whether they wanted it or not, and it wouldn't take up that valuable real estate on the CPU dies.