Chances of Intel Going Fabless Higher Than Ever

[trparky]

If Intel is so great and all, why is AMD finally showing signs of beating them? If Intel is so great why have they been sitting on what is essentially the same damn product since Ivy Bridge? We've not seen real innovation from Intel in more then five years. They've been sleeping meanwhile AMD just came up and slapped them up side the head. I really do think that AMD's Zen 2 is going to be a game changer, it's going to be like the old AMD Athlon 64 vs Intel Pentium 4 days again and it's going to be great!!!

 

[oxidized]

If Intel is so great and all, why is AMD finally showing signs of beating them? If Intel is so great why have they been sitting on what is essentially the same damn product since Ivy Bridge? We've not seen real innovation from Intel in more then five years. They've been sleeping meanwhile AMD just came up and slapped them up side the head. I really do think that AMD's Zen 2 is going to be a game changer, it's going to be like the old AMD Athlon 64 vs Intel Pentium 4 days again and it's going to be great!!!

Intel didn't do much except from improving manufacturing process because they had no competition, and while it's basically the same architecture from IB, it's a newer micro architecture, and that improved things, slowly but it did. Also no, Ryzen, while being a very good product, isn't beating anything core for core, and clock for clock, they're only winning when compared to lower core count CPUs and for pricing point. Zen 2 will probably be better than the first, but it depends on how AMD will actually work with that 7nm process, and how good and down to specs GF/Samsung go with the 7nm they're claiming they have, same for TSMC.

 

[yeeeeman]

Also no, Ryzen, while being a very good product, isn't beating anything core for core, and clock for clock, they're only winning when compared to lower core count CPUs and for pricing point.

Mhmmm, maybe that is what you understood from the reviews. If you understand the fact that Intel CPUs turbo at much higher clocks compared to AMD CPUs (because of better process that Intel has but also because of some uArch limitation that AMD CPUs might have), then you will see that clock per clock performance between Zen and Coffee Lake (which is Skylake) is ~ same. If you don't believe, please read https://www.techspot.com/article/1616-4ghz-ryzen-2nd-gen-vs-core-8th-gen/
Zen is a very good core, on par with what Intel has currently. The only weakness is in games (and to be brutally honest, the difference is very small, usually 10%) because of CCX latency. But if you compare them in compute tasks, the actual core performance of Zen is the same as Skylake, Kaby Lake or Coffee Lake. So pleeeeeease, cut this boring line about Intel "still having the lead in IPC." - Yeah, if a percentage of 2-3% is a lead, then don't know man, why don't we use also first and second decimal to compare. 2.57% more IPC. Great. Bet you can actually feel that difference.
Now on a serious note, Zen is actually that good and the revised 2000 series is on par with Coffee Lake on IPC.

As for 7nm, it is the first time when TSMC makes a high performance x86 core, so we might get some surpises.

As a small note, I don't have any affinity for AMD (I am using a 6700HQ laptop), nor for Intel. Just talking facts.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

What's more likely: Intel selling fabs or Intel buying out someone else's fabs (and IP to improve their own)? Intel can only sell if there's a buyer and I can't see Saudi royalty swooping in to be Intel's hero like they did for AMD.

 

[oxidized]

Mhmmm, maybe that is what you understood from the reviews. If you understand the fact that Intel CPUs turbo at much higher clocks compared to AMD CPUs (because of better process that Intel has but also because of some uArch limitation that AMD CPUs might have), then you will see that clock per clock performance between Zen and Coffee Lake (which is Skylake) is ~ same. If you don't believe, please read https://www.techspot.com/article/1616-4ghz-ryzen-2nd-gen-vs-core-8th-gen/
Zen is a very good core, on par with what Intel has currently. The only weakness is in games (and to be brutally honest, the difference is very small, usually 10%) because of CCX latency. But if you compare them in compute tasks, the actual core performance of Zen is the same as Skylake, Kaby Lake or Coffee Lake. So pleeeeeease, cut this boring line about Intel "still having the lead in IPC." - Yeah, if a percentage of 2-3% is a lead, then don't know man, why don't we use also first and second decimal to compare. 2.57% more IPC. Great. Bet you can actually feel that difference.
Now on a serious note, Zen is actually that good and the revised 2000 series is on par with Coffee Lake on IPC.

As for 7nm, it is the first time when TSMC makes a high performance x86 core, so we might get some surpises.

As a small note, I don't have any affinity for AMD (I am using a 6700HQ laptop), nor for Intel. Just talking facts.

A 2-3% advantage in IPC, a decent difference in frequency, and less memory latency, resulting in an overall better performance of 5-10% is still a lead in performance no matter how small or large, and keep in mind you're comparing an almost 10 years old architecture, to a 1-2 years old. Anyway i don't give a damn about brands too, i just buy whatever suits my needs best, or the faster thing, no matter if red, blue, green, yellow, pink, gray, or whatever you want. Performance is still in intel's hand, no doubt about it, but AMD has improved hugely, and really have the chance to pass intel if they get stuff correctly with 7nm (also depending on how good or bad these 7nm are).
Also the manufacturing process lead still remains in intel's hand, at least until AMD launches Zen 2.

 

[StrayKAT]

If Intel is so great and all, why is AMD finally showing signs of beating them? If Intel is so great why have they been sitting on what is essentially the same damn product since Ivy Bridge? We've not seen real innovation from Intel in more then five years. They've been sleeping meanwhile AMD just came up and slapped them up side the head. I really do think that AMD's Zen 2 is going to be a game changer, it's going to be like the old AMD Athlon 64 vs Intel Pentium 4 days again and it's going to be great!!!

They didn't do anything because they didn't have to.

 

[Imsochobo]

A touch of fanboyism? Pardon, do you actually have any idea what are you talking about? Intel's 14nm is the most polished, the only one in specs, resulting in smaller transistors and if used correctly higher density of the die.

I beg my pardon.
Intel does not have the *best* process.
However!

It's arguably the most high performance node there is, there is one other node that can challenge performance, however that node is nowhere near for efficiency.
There are however nodes better for chips like ARM and Atom contenders.
glofo 12nm and samsung 10nm node is actually better at a few metrics and compete with yields so I'd say for manufacturing there is parity, nothing is superior at this stage.

At amd's analyst day they explicitly said they've given working 7nm zen2 to partners already, we're in august and they've sent working Epyc chips and not dualcore 15w 2mb cache 2ghz chips @ 10nm...
I am a sceptic to performance crown on node with usable efficiency for normal end users for both camps, and Intel themselves also said the 10nm for a while will not have better performance so they'll likely have high cores on 10nm and ->8 core at 14nm++++++ until at least end of 2020 which is quite bad.

Performance = frequency which 14nm++++ does extremely well after 5 years of tuning.

 

[oxidized]

I beg my pardon.
Intel does not have the *best* process.
However!

It's arguably the most high performance node there is, there is one other node that can challenge performance, however that node is nowhere near for efficiency.
There are however nodes better for chips like ARM and Atom contenders.
glofo 12nm and samsung 10nm node is actually better at a few metrics and compete with yields so I'd say for manufacturing there is parity, nothing is superior at this stage.

At amd's analyst day they explicitly said they've given working 7nm zen2 to partners already, we're in august and they've sent working Epyc chips and not dualcore 15w 2mb cache 2ghz chips @ 10nm...
I am a sceptic to performance crown on node with usable efficiency for normal end users for both camps, and Intel themselves also said the 10nm for a while will not have better performance so they'll likely have high cores on 10nm and ->8 core at 14nm++++++ until at least end of 2020 which is quite bad.

Performance = frequency which 14nm++++ does extremely well after 5 years of tuning.

I'm talking about x86 stuff, intel HAS the best process hands down, the 12nm doesn't exists, it's just an optimized 14nm, but still not at intel's 14nm level.

 

[R-T-B]

Now tell me how are Samsung and TSMC driving innovation forward?

Meaningful process node advances, mainly. Not that they haven't had their dog days as well...

 

[oxidized]

Meaningful process node advances, mainly. Not that they haven't had their dog days as well...

OK but nothing intel hasn't done, actually they did even more at least from that standpoint

 

[R-T-B]

OK but nothing intel hasn't done, actually they did even more at least from that standpoint

I'd agree with that to a limited extent. But you were acting like TSMC and Samsung / GloFo haven't had their moments. Heck if you ask me, they are certainly looking like the ones with the edge come early 2019.

 

[oxidized]

I'd agree with that to a limited extent. But you were acting like TSMC and Samsung / GloFo haven't had their moments. Heck if you ask me, they are certainly looking like the ones with the edge come early 2019.

No, absolutely not, i'm just saying that until now intel is the one that refined most its processes, for 2019 we'll have to wait, if the trend keeps going like it had with 14nm, we'll have a 10nm from intel being kinda on par with GF/Samsung and TSMC 7nm, that's what i'm mainly talking about. But that could be just too late for intel.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

AMD went fabless because they were out of cash. I don't think Intel is that desperate yet.

 

[oxidized]

AMD went fabless because they were out of cash. I don't think Intel is that desperate yet.

My prediction is that they'll never go fabless, and their 10nm is going to be at least on par with GF/Samsung 7nm.

 

[Bones]

Doesn't matter how good or bad the process is, whether it's a 10nm , 7nm, materials used, ideas conceived or whatever else..... If they can't get the product to work AND out the door to customers it's a problem.
Intel has sat on it's hands for sometime and now it's hitting them. With nothing more than the "Tick-Tock" of release after release of so called "New" chips they simply carried on with what they had, releasing incrementaly faster chips based on largely the same arch. It's almost like the guys at Intel more or less forgot how to innovate and design chips that actually work.

However this isn't the first time Intel has had this problem - Years ago when AMD first released the Socket 754 Athlon 64 as the first chip capable of 64 bit operation Intel had a plan for 64 bit and tried it - The "Plan" blew up in their face.
They didn't have anything for AMD concerning 64 bit and they knew it after the fact.

I still remember seeing all the 64 bit AMD's and not a single 64 bit Intel chip listed at the egg..... Turns out in the end Intel had to make a deal with AMD to learn how 64 bit chips work so they could make them. That's when Intel finally released it's first 64 bit capable chip and things went from there.

Looks like a repeat of history but this time I don't see AMD lending a helping hand so readily.
AMD has made good on what they set out to do and shows no sign of stopping or even slowing down - Seems Intel on the other hand can't even get started - Again.

 

[R0H1T]

AMD went fabless because they were out of cash. I don't think Intel is that desperate yet.

They went fabless a decade back.

 

[oxidized]

Doesn't matter how good or bad the process is, whether it's a 10nm , 7nm, materials used, ideas conceived or whatever else..... If they can't get the product to work AND out the door to customers it's a problem.
Intel has sat on it's hands for sometime and now it's hitting them. With nothing more than the "Tick-Tock" of release after release of so called "New" chips they simply carried on with what they had, releasing incrementaly faster chips based on largely the same arch. It's almost like the guys at Intel more or less forgot how to innovate and design chips that actually work.

However this isn't the first time Intel has had this problem - Years ago when AMD first released the Socket 754 Athlon 64 as the first chip capable of 64 bit operation Intel had a plan for 64 bit and tried it - The "Plan" blew up in their face.
They didn't have anything for AMD concerning 64 bit and they knew it after the fact.

I still remember seeing all the 64 bit AMD's and not a single 64 bit Intel chip listed at the egg..... Turns out in the end Intel had to make a deal with AMD to learn how 64 bit chips work so they could make them. That's when Intel finally released it's first 64 bit capable chip and things went from there.

Looks like a repeat of history but this time I don't see AMD lending a helping hand so readily.
AMD has made good on what they set out to do and shows no sign of stopping or even slowing down - Seems Intel on the other hand can't even get started - Again.

And what intel would require help for? Aside from the fact intel's too proud to ask for help.

 

[Bones]

And what intel would require help for? Aside from the fact intel's too proud to ask for help.

You answered your own question to an extent.

You can't deny they are having problems because they are. Nothing says they can't get by it somehow, however with AMD ready to release another chip arch and Intel struggling to get anything going to counter, it's not looking so great for them.
The current situation is what it is - Could change at anytime but I'm not gonna hold my breath over it.

As to "What" they would want any help over that's something only they can answer and that also depends IF they would ask in the first place.

 

[lexluthermiester]

If by "higher than ever" you mean "Well, no" instead of previous "Hell, no", then that might be accurate

Right? Intel is too big and owns to many of it's own fabs to go fabless.

@W1zzard Why is @btarunr allowed to post gems of silliness like this? It's making TPU look bad(like a monkey effing a football). There have been many baseless & downright incorrect statements made, the most recent was the post about the 8086k being the first 5ghz CPU, which was blatantly and patently wrong. Seriously. If I were to publish things like this where I work, the pink slip would come quickly.

 

[trparky]

IF they would ask in the first place.

I highly doubt that they would ask for help.

 

[oxidized]

You answered your own question to an extent.

You can't deny they are having problems because they are. Nothing says they can't get by it somehow, however with AMD ready to release another chip arch and Intel struggling to get anything going to counter, it's not looking so great for them.
The current situation is what it is - Could change at anytime but I'm not gonna hold my breath over it.

As to "What" they would want any help over that's something only they can answer and that also depends IF they would ask in the first place.

No i can't deny they're having problems, because they've admitted that themselves. The problem is that we currently only have words, AMD could be launching 7nm this year or they can launch it next year together with intel (if they don't delay it again) and that virtual advantage they're talking about would be gone instantly. So what i'm saying is basically they don't need any technical help from any of the other foundries because as of now, they don't have anything to learn.

 

[Bones]

Acutally they do have something to learn - How to make what they want work in the first place.

If not then these problems woudn't even exist because they'd know how to fix things, then tell the foundries how to do it and go from there.
I do agree ATM we only have words from AMD and that too can change, at least what's said vs the reality of it when it happens.... And I guess with that it's "Wait and see".

 

[Assimilator]

Suggesting that Intel would go fabless because 10nm has been so painful is laughable. No company as big and successful as them would throw in the towel on a single stumble. I'm willing to bet that when they do finally get 10nm sorted, they'll also be set for the next few generations.

Right? Intel is too big and owns to many of it's own fabs to go fabless.

@W1zzard Why is @btarunr allowed to post gems of silliness like this? It's making TPU look bad(like a monkey effing a football). There have been many baseless & downright incorrect statements made, the most recent was the post about the 8086k being the first 5ghz CPU, which was blatantly and patently wrong. Seriously. If I were to publish things like this where I work, the pink slip would come quickly.

Yellow journalism gets click-throughs.

 

[trparky]

single stumble

But it's not a "single stumble" as you put it, it's been several stumbles. 10nm should have been out four years ago. Remember the days of the Tick-Tock model? For the last four years it's been Tick... Tock... Tock... Tock.

 

[lexluthermiester]

But it's not a "single stumble" as you put it, it's been several stumbles. 10nm should have been out four years ago. Remember the days of the Tick-Tock model? For the last four years it's been Tick... Tock... Tock... Tock.

Regardless of how many stumbles it is, 10nm lithography is not an easy task. At that size, they are getting down to the single digit atomic pathway count, meaning that electrical pathways are less than 10 atoms wide. AMD's 7nm, will be smaller. Intel will get there, but the process refinement needs perfecting. Neither company is going to have an easy time of it.