Saturday, July 6th 2024

Intel Arc Xe2 "Battlemage" Discrete GPUs Made on TSMC 4 nm Process

Intel has reportedly chosen the TSMC 4 nm EUV foundry node for its next generation Arc Xe2 discrete GPUs based on the "Battlemage" graphics architecture. This would mark a generational upgrade from the Arc "Alchemist" family, which Intel built on the TSMC 6 nm DUV process. The TSMC N4 node offers significant increases in transistor densities, performance, and power efficiency over the N6, which is allowing Intel to nearly double the Xe cores on its largest "Battlemage" variant in numerical terms. This, coupled with increased IPC, clock speeds, and other features, should make the "Battlemage" contemporary against today's AMD RDNA 3 and NVIDIA Ada gaming GPUs. Interestingly, TSMC N4 isn't the most advanced foundry node that the Xe2 "Battlemage" is being built on. The iGPU powering Intel's Core Ultra 200V "Lunar Lake" processor is part of its Compute tile, which Intel is building on the more advanced TSMC N3 (3 nm) node.
Source: DigiTimes
Add your own comment

59 Comments on Intel Arc Xe2 "Battlemage" Discrete GPUs Made on TSMC 4 nm Process

#26
john_
DavenIntel has always had CPUs and needs GPUs for data center not consoles. Microsoft is in bed with Qualcomm. No one wants Intel.
Intel restarted the whole discrete GPU development because of servers indeed. This is also an argument I am using the past 1+ years that others say that Intel will abandon GPUs because of ARC's failure. Intel needs GPUs. For both servers and the consumer market. An Intel without GPUs is vulnerable ALSO in the consumer market.
That being said consoles is an important market not just for income, but also for promoting techs. Games developed on consoles will support the hardware of those consoles and considering the modern consoles are PCs, that means that PC ports will be coming with all Intel techs integrated from day 1, if those consoles are running Intel hardware.
Microsoft is with Qualcomm now because it wants to secure that IF ARM prevails Windows will remain the OS of choice. But it is with Intel for over 25 years. The Surface line using Intel chips and not AMD is a proof of that. MS waiting for Intel Lunar Lake to come out before offering AI features to x86 CPUs is also one more. Don't think that MS is delaying AI features on AMD's new CPUs just for Qualcomm's sake. In the x86 market MS was always supporting Intel first, AMD (much) later. And IF ARM doesn't prevail, MS will remain in bed with Intel. IF ARM grabs enough market share but x86 remains a 50%+ option, MS will have a trio with Qualcomm and Intel in bed. No one writes off Intel.
Posted on Reply
#27
InVasMani
I'd still like to see 32GB VRAM version off Battlemage GPU offered, but it seems unlikely. It would be great for higher resolutions and like 3D modelings and/or high resolution video editing. Probably good for some AI training stuff too. It seems plausible too that they could seeing as a Maxwell based Tesla M40 as well as Pascal P40 had 24GB of VRAM and those had less bandwidth and obviously perform slower. Like they absolutely could consider it and pretty much subsidize the cost of the additional VRAM tacked on just to sell more chips and gain more market share which is probably also better for driver support and future development of it's follow up architectures. I'm not holding my breath though I'd like to see it.
Posted on Reply
#28
Onyx Turbine
Hypothetically the current market wants a strong midfield contender which not necessarily motivates to buy a higher end gpu.
As such mas sales drive down costs and can warrant agressive pricing as i just picked up amd plans to do with its midrange cpu,
if this becomes true we look at midrange cards that finally will hold some value over time as such its graphical performance must hover around 4080
with the tdp of a 4060ti at worst.

Price willing to pay 479 Euros or 500 with game bundles, better steam account balance
Posted on Reply
#30
Wirko
EternitSo Intel is able to deliver 5 nodes in four years... but all these nodes are useless.
No, but you need to understand their creative use of "deliver". It's Intel 7, Intel 4, TSMC N6, N4, and N3. Maybe Intel 3 too.
Posted on Reply
#31
phanbuey
Just bought a bunch of a380s to put 4K multi monitor support in a bunch of office rigs - great cards - I have hope these can be good
Posted on Reply
#32
Onyx Turbine
Event HorizonI want Battlemage to succeed. I think we all do.
yes
Posted on Reply
#33
Suspecto
FoulOnWhiteNot all handouts. Also the FABS they are building in the US will also benefit the US economy. There some US companies that will use their FABS instead of using china etc. Or would you rather Intel takes money from the US gov and gives nothing back? What does AMD give back? do they have FABS for US companies to make use of? Intels FABS might not be running perfectly now, but it won't always be that way, and like I have said before, at least they are not totally FABless like AMD are, which could bite them on the bum at some point.
If you think it works this way, start producing your meat instead of buying one. It will cost you almost nothing, but an extreme amount of resources and time, 1 year of life till the first output and it will also be way more expensive in the end, not to mention, that livestock farming will most likely prevent you from keeping your current job.

And that's how protectionism works in the long term, no economy benefits from it, it might create or keep 1000 jobs but loses 100 000 ones in the long term.

AMD and ARM from TSMC gives you back and extremely cheap and fast CPUs, immediate cost cutting, enabling the economy's informatisation and higher productivity. If the economy grows 3% instead of 2% thanks to those cpus, it doubles in 24 years instead of 35 years and 3% growth for 35 years will mean the economy is now at 281% of its original size instead of 200%.

That's the effect of competition and trade. If you choose to support Intel and moving fabs to the US, you might create 50k job in the long term, which means literally nothing compared to the size of the US economy, it will cost you years to build them, billions to fund them but in the longterm, but it doesn't change the fact that the cost of producing in the US will be higher, it will be small potion of global market and those resources were wasted and now, you are obliged also to purchase US made products which are more expensive and and in the end, you are left with less money to spend on something else and the US economy is smaller as a whole and a million of jobs are missing due to a simple decision made 20 years ago.

Intel - you would still have had 4 cores
AMD - now you can afford 12 for the same price and they are also significantly faster.


That's competition and free trade for you.
Posted on Reply
#34
ARF
SuspectoIntel - you would still have had 4 cores
AMD - now you can afford 12 for the same price and they are also significantly faster.
That's competition and free trade for you.
Remember that intel got other CPUs, too? Core i7-6800K has 6-core / 12-thread config, for 434$ in 2016.

As for the 4nm GPUs - too little, too late, and probably will not be really competitive.
TSMC has already got 3nm production up and running for years, and they are now in the process to move everything to 2nm.
So, where exactly does that old 4nm process fall?
Posted on Reply
#35
FoulOnWhite
SuspectoIf you think it works this way, start producing your meat instead of buying one. It will cost you almost nothing, but an extreme amount of resources and time, 1 year of life till the first output and it will also be way more expensive in the end, not to mention, that livestock farming will most likely prevent you from keeping your current job.

And that's how protectionism works in the long term, no economy benefits from it, it might create or keep 1000 jobs but loses 100 000 ones in the long term.

AMD and ARM from TSMC gives you back and extremely cheap and fast CPUs, immediate cost cutting, enabling the economy's informatisation and higher productivity. If the economy grows 3% instead of 2% thanks to those cpus, it doubles in 24 years instead of 35 years and 3% growth for 35 years will mean the economy is now at 281% of its original size instead of 200%.

That's the effect of competition and trade. If you choose to support Intel and moving fabs to the US, you might create 50k job in the long term, which means literally nothing compared to the size of the US economy, it will cost you years to build them, billions to fund them but in the longterm, but it doesn't change the fact that the cost of producing in the US will be higher, it will be small potion of global market and those resources were wasted and now, you are obliged also to purchase US made products which are more expensive and and in the end, you are left with less money to spend on something else and the US economy is smaller as a whole and a million of jobs are missing due to a simple decision made 20 years ago.

Intel - you would still have had 4 cores
AMD - now you can afford 12 for the same price and they are also significantly faster.


That's competition and free trade for you.
Slow clap
Posted on Reply
#36
ARF
SuspectoIf you think it works this way, start producing your meat instead of buying one. It will cost you almost nothing, but an extreme amount of resources and time, 1 year of life till the first output and it will also be way more expensive in the end, not to mention, that livestock farming will most likely prevent you from keeping your current job.
offtopic:/ At least, you will eat clean meat, not the one with injected water and all other pollutants that is being sold in the shops.
You can also work home office, and still have very decent amounts of incomes. /endofofftopic
Posted on Reply
#37
FoulOnWhite
Event HorizonI want Battlemage to succeed. I think we all do.
Apart from most of the TPU AMD club
Posted on Reply
#38
AnarchoPrimitiv
DavenSo all Intel’s next gen consumer CPUs and GPUs are made at TSMC? I guess that’s one way to fight the competition: take away fab capacity.

I guess that forces other companies to consider IFS’s inferior nodes. Intel gets to control third party production and limit their performance. And make money off the whole deal as well.

Intel is on fire right now with these strategies.
You mean that Intel is succeeding on everything EXCEPT innovation and making the better product? Isn't that the exact opposite of how a company should succeeding in a "free market"?
john_It seems that at Intel they are really angry that people consider them incompetent the last few years, so they are jumping at the best TSMC nodes to prove that they are still building superior designs than the competition (AMD, ARM).
AMD should be careful to not end up third even before Intel starts fixing it's manufacturing problems. Lunar Lake, Battlemage, AMD could be in trouble in a year from now in laptops and GPUs.
And considering that mobile CPUs and GPUs are the ingredients for a console APU, I wonder if Intel is trying to build the hardware foundations here to go after SONY's and MS's next consoles. And while SONY might be a difficult target, MS is in bed with Intel for decades and it needs to differentiate itself from SONY to even have a chance with it's next console. When hardware is similar, like both using AMD's APUs, SONY wins easily.
Everything you just described sounds like it would be a catastrophe for consumers and competitiveness.....so my question is this: why does anybody root for Intel when any increase in their marketshare in x86 is objectively bad for consumers and compeititon as a whole?
Posted on Reply
#39
Ferrum Master
I think it is a bold move from Intel here. Mature process, less expenses as all tools are same as it is N5 derivative.

Not sure why is even N3 is mentioned... you had to have everything made from scratch again to port it to it to that process. Intel is not a home tenant at TSMC and will not have access to all software and design help as Apple does or nvidia, as they have their own tailored tech-nodes named after them.

Get real people, stop bitching about useless crap but look at the technological bits there.
Posted on Reply
#40
AnarchoPrimitiv
FoulOnWhiteNot all handouts. Also the FABS they are building in the US will also benefit the US economy. There some US companies that will use their FABS instead of using china etc. Or would you rather Intel takes money from the US gov and gives nothing back? What does AMD give back? do they have FABS for US companies to make use of? Intels FABS might not be running perfectly now, but it won't always be that way, and like I have said before, at least they are not totally FABless like AMD are, which could bite them on the bum at some point.
Why is it not possible to critique Intel without someone pulling a whataboutism concerning AMD? Secondly, what is Intel "giving back" to this country? Because it seems to me that intel is a NET negative for consumers and the x86 industry as a whole. They constantly try to engage in monopolistic and anti competitive tactics...for example, who knows where the x86 industry would be or AMD's partnership with Global Foundries had Intel not engaged in an ILLEGAL campaign of bribing OEMs in the 2000s like Dell to NOT carry AMD products (this has been proven in court in several jurisdictionsand is an undeniable fact)?

Intel is still doing it to this day, they bribe OEMs....sorry, not bribery, but or "joint development funds" (although I dont know how it isnt bribery when youre basically paying a company to NOT use your competitor)to keep AMD chips out of the majority of laptop models....that's not competition or innovation, that's cartelism and monopoly and it comes at the consumers expense. For the past several years AMD has had superior products, but Intel has been able to stave that off through basically bribery and selling chips at cost which creates a situation where the superior product DOESNT succeed. How can anybody cheer for that or that behavior?

The bottom line is this: in a defacto duopoly, the best situation for consumers is a 50%/50% split in marketshare to promote thr most competition and the lowest prices..that is OBJECTIVELY true. Therefore, since Intel has the majority of marketshare in all segments of x86, it is also OBJECTIVELY true that any increase in that marketshare is BAD for consumers....so I ask again, why cheer for Intel? All these reasons are exactly why I do not understand why people are excited for Intel to make dGPUs...all Intel will do is take marketshare from AMD because it's been proven that Nvidia fans will never buy anything other than Nvidia, and we'll be in the exact same spot we were in befofe....only this time, Intel can use their dGPUs to turn the screws on OEMs even more: "Bundle your prebuilts with our CPU and dGPU and we'll give the dGPU at cost....just as long as you ensure that AMD CPUs are only used in a single, budget model with the lowest sales figures". Yes, Intel will use any success in dGPU to put even more pressure on AMD in x86....not with innovation or along the superior product, but through corporation and cartelism.

P.S. The fact that x86 is a duopoly and the American government gave billions to only one side of that duopoly is crazy, it destroys any sense of a free and fair market, and no, I'm not saying they should have given money to AMD too, no corporation with billions of dollars should get taxpayer money. What tje government should have done is say to Intel: "If you don't build some fabs here, we're going to start a monopoly investigation against you...."

P.S.S. I'm not an "AMD fan", I'm a fan of what is objectively best for me, the consumer, and it is NEVER in the consumer's interest for a monopolistic company to extend that monopoly. If the day ever came where AMD captured 51% of the market, I'd be cheering for Intel to take that 1% back.
Posted on Reply
#41
kondamin
ARFTSMC has already got 3nm production up and running for years, and they are now in the process to move everything to 2nm.
So, where exactly does that old 4nm process fall?
Yes, but AMD isn't going to be releasing 3nm consumer grade gpu's anytime soon
I also doubt nvidia will do more than a mostly paper launch of a 5090 if that is going to be on n3?
Posted on Reply
#42
john_
AnarchoPrimitivEverything you just described sounds like it would be a catastrophe for consumers and competitiveness.....so my question is this: why does anybody root for Intel when any increase in their marketshare in x86 is objectively bad for consumers and compeititon as a whole?
Who is routing for Intel?
Posted on Reply
#43
Jayn2
I think Intel only has EUV running in the D1X fabs in Oregon and a single fab in Ireland.

The one in Ireland is only building Intel-4 and Intel 3. Everything else (EUV) is coming out of D1X.

Intel says mfg plans/allocations are made early in the product cycle, so I'm guessing the decision to use Intel-3 for Sierra Forest and TSM-N3 for Lunar Lake was made a few years back, and had more to do with the limited capacity in D1X than any other reason.
Posted on Reply
#44
jaresk
Capacity at TSMC was booked by intel's previous ceo, back when they were still struggling with 10nm. They pre-paid like everyone does and now they are using it.
Posted on Reply
#45
lexluthermiester
JomaleIf you can´t FAB it, buy it from elsewhere: INTel
You're missing something. It's not that Intel can't fab these chips, it that they are running all of their fabs at capacity. They need to contract the chips out to make the deadlines for release.
jareskCapacity at TSMC was booked by intel's previous ceo, back when they were still struggling with 10nm. They pre-paid like everyone does and now they are using it.
There's some of this too.
Posted on Reply
#46
Daven
lexluthermiesterYou're missing something. It's not that Intel can't fab these chips, it that they are running all of their fabs at capacity. They need to contract the chips out to make the deadlines for release.
Intel’s fabs are not at capacity. Not even close unless you have proof otherwise.

IFS has been hemorrhaging money. All is not well in the house of Intel.
Posted on Reply
#47
watzupken
DavenSo all Intel’s next gen consumer CPUs and GPUs are made at TSMC? I guess that’s one way to fight the competition: take away fab capacity.

I guess that forces other companies to consider IFS’s inferior nodes. Intel gets to control third party production and limit their performance. And make money off the whole deal as well.

Intel is on fire right now with these strategies.
This can only be a short term solution because by using TSMC, (1) they likely pay a significant premium to get access to cutting edge node, and, (2) it is not good advertising for their own fab business. I think it will become an increasingly difficult uphill challenge for Intel because they are bleeding cash while engaging in a 3 way product fight, (a) CPU, (b) GPU, and, (c) fab business. And ARM have joined the fight to the dismay of Intel.
Posted on Reply
#48
lexluthermiester
DavenIntel’s fabs are not at capacity. Not even close unless you have proof otherwise.
How about YOU prove they're not? I'm offering a plausible reason based market data you can go look up yourself. I'm not your lackey.
DavenAll is not well in the house of Intel.
Moose muffins. Intel CPU's are still the best performers overall and they're selling very well. So there's that.
Posted on Reply
#49
johnspack
Here For Good!
Who cares where they fab it. Nvidia and Amd need competition really bad. We need to pay less for video cards.
Posted on Reply
#50
lexluthermiester
johnspackWho cares where they fab it. Nvidia and Amd need competition really bad. We need to pay less for video cards.
Exactly! Who cares.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 4th, 2024 03:29 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts