Intel 7nm CPUs Delayed by a Year, Alder Lake in 2H-2021, Other Commentary from Intel Management

[chodaboy19]

Where does every one get this?
Far as I know this just what intel claims and there is no actual proof

There density comes from having several different designs for caches L1 caches transistors are different from L2 and so is it's L3 it's all for space saving.

AMD an other manufacturers use a more uniformed transistor on the nod.

That is why AMD an other always end up 20% larger dies

Well that was a shocker!

Like really, who believed they were actually gonna release 7nm this year?




Do you ever get tired of spouting this rubbish?

That's like Nikola saying they make better electric semis than Tesla. lmao

They have actual specs here:

7 nm lithography process - WikiChip

The 7 nanometer (7 nm) lithography process is a technology node semiconductor manufacturing process following the 10 nm process node. Mass production of integrated circuit fabricated using a 7 nm process began in 2018. The process technology will be phased out by leading-edge foundries by...

en.wikichip.org

 

[Caring1]

10nm all over again.

 

[thesmokingman]

They have actual specs here:

7 nm lithography process - WikiChip

The 7 nanometer (7 nm) lithography process is a technology node semiconductor manufacturing process following the 10 nm process node. Mass production of integrated circuit fabricated using a 7 nm process began in 2018. The process technology will be phased out by leading-edge foundries by...

en.wikichip.org

You didn't get the reference to Nikola did you? You ever heard of the saying "A Bird in the Hand is Worth Two in the Bush?"

 

[londiste]

How the hell did they mess up so badly, like I said on Anandtech, since Sandy Bridge in 2011 they didn't do anything major, they just got a lot of money doing the same thing over and over.

I do not understand the popular opinion that Intel does nothing. They absolutely do a lot of things.
We are all disappointed that they are failing to bring out proper competition to AMD Ryzens but come on.

After Sandy Bridge they did 22nm and 14nm manufacturing processes, arguably the 10nm process and 7nm is somewhere in the pipeline.
In terms of CPUs, AVX2, extending execution resources and caches, adding new tech as it comes along etc. And Ice Lake has even more substantial changes than that. Current Comet Lake (which is a rehashed Skylake from 2015) is ~25% faster than Sandy Bridge with single core load at the same clock. Ice Lake is a good step faster than that, Intel's 18% has been verified to be true enough.

This is just mainline CPUs. There is the Atom line that Intel seems to be getting back to with Tremont. There is XPoint with hopefully new gen coming out at one point.
Plus there are a bunch of other things Intel does with varying degrees of success - NAND Flash and controllers, FPGAs come to mind. Packaging technologies like EMIB or Foveros. Mobile modems and 5G is something they failed at.

 

[Flanker]

Duke Nukem for Intel

 

[TheLostSwede]

I do not understand the popular opinion that Intel does nothing. They absolutely do a lot of things.
We are all disappointed that they are failing to bring out proper competition to AMD Ryzens but come on.

After Sandy Bridge they did 22nm and 14nm manufacturing processes, arguably the 10nm process and 7nm is somewhere in the pipeline.
In terms of CPUs, AVX2, extending execution resources and caches, adding new tech as it comes along etc. And Ice Lake has even more substantial changes than that. Current Comet Lake (which is a rehashed Skylake from 2015) is ~25% faster than Sandy Bridge with single core load at the same clock. Ice Lake is a good step faster than that, Intel's 18% has been verified to be true enough.

This is just mainline CPUs. There is the Atom line that Intel seems to be getting back to with Tremont. There is XPoint with hopefully new gen coming out at one point.
Plus there are a bunch of other things Intel does with varying degrees of success - NAND Flash and controllers, FPGAs come to mind. Packaging technologies like EMIB or Foveros. Mobile modems and 5G is something they failed at.

It's not that Intel hasn't done anything, it's more that they've over promised and under delivered time and time again when it comes to a lot of their products.
Unfortunately this is what happens when you have a de facto monopoly in any industry, so this is by no means unique to Intel.

They also tried to jump further than was technically possible with their process node, as they believed that they could go down a different and supposedly better router, which turned out to be a disaster in the end. However, due to management decisions, this wasn't knocked on the head early enough, instead they tried to salvage it several times over, which lead to further delays. This is how many a company has gone bust, but luckily for Intel, there wasn't much competition, so they could continue using their current node.

This doesn't even take into account all the security holes Intel has been struggling to patch, which makes the company look like they haven't even bothered to check their products properly, as they affect so many generations of processors. There will obviously always be things like this cropping up, as someone will always find a way to bypass security, but it feels like Intel has been lazy here.

Now the competition has caught up and is about to potentially supersede Intel on many levels, which is what makes Intel look bad.

We obviously have limited insight into what they're working on, but the information that is available makes it look like it's at last another 2-3 years before Intel might be able to sort all this out and be back with something truly competitive, both in terms of process node and desktop CPU performance.

However, you are right that Intel is also working on a lot of other things, although XPoint wasn't done just by Intel, as it was co-designed with Micron and the FPGA was added though an acquisition of Altera, so that wasn't developed in-house.

Maybe the loss of focus is partially what caused some of the problems in the company, there were too many BU's fighting for resources and that's why things are where they are today. I guess you also forgot about Intel's attempt at competing with ARM in the mobile phone space, which ended in a disaster, as there's no other word for it.

Is Intel a terrible company because of all this? Of course not, but it shows that even the giants can fall from grace.

 

[londiste]

We obviously have limited insight into what they're working on, but the information that is available makes it look like it's at last another 2-3 years before Intel might be able to sort all this out and be back with something truly competitive, both in terms of process node and desktop CPU performance.

I only half-agree with you here. From the limited insight we have, lack of a workable new process node is their root and main problem. Architecturally speaking Ice Lake is OK, Tiger Lake seems to shape up just fine as well. Intel simply cannot produce this stuff. Even Skylake/Comet Lake is not half bad considering what it is with one notable exception - power consumption, which is very much down to process node.

Edit: Ice Lake and Tiger Lake are obviously not without issues. 10nm is still rough, core count is too low for whatever reason, marketing is doing them no favors, do not exist on desktop etc. But in terms of CPU architecture and performance, they are not in a bad place.

Maybe the loss of focus is partially what caused some of the problems in the company, there were too many BU's fighting for resources and that's why things are where they are today. I guess you also forgot about Intel's attempt at competing with ARM in the mobile phone space, which ended in a disaster, as there's no other word for it.

BUs fighting for resources is normal for all corporations
Intel's mobile attempt is definitely not the only thing I forgot. They are dealing in too many areas.

 

[john_]

Funny that OEMs will have to start pushing AMD models in the market, as the premium optrions, because Intel CPUs are going to become non competitive in a year.

Now we also know why Apple chose this time to switch to ARM.

On the other hand, Zen 3 will be ultra expensive to avoid pushing Intel to drop prices.

 

[TheLostSwede]

I only half-agree with you here. From the limited insight we have, lack of a workable new process node is their root and main problem. Architecturally speaking Ice Lake is OK, Tiger Lake seems to shape up just fine as well. Intel simply cannot produce this stuff. Even Skylake/Comet Lake is not half bad considering what it is with one notable exception - power consumption, which is very much down to process node.

Edit: Ice Lake and Tiger Lake are obviously not without issues. 10nm is still rough, core count is too low for whatever reason, marketing is doing them no favors, do not exist on desktop etc. But in terms of CPU architecture and performance, they are not in a bad place.
BUs fighting for resources is normal for all corporations
Intel's mobile attempt is definitely not the only thing I forgot. They are dealing in too many areas.

But how is a good CPU design going to help them if they can't produce it? I mean, it could be the best thing since sliced bread, but if they only get 10 chips per wafer, what it does it matter, as it's going to cost a fortune and no-one will buy it?
Without a reliable process node, their CPU designs aren't going to help them get out of the hole they dug themselves into.

On the other hand, Zen 3 will be ultra expensive to avoid pushing Intel to drop prices.

And you know this how? Obviously AMD is going to cash in on being the top dog for the time, I mean, they need the money, but ultra expensive...

 

[Assimilator]

Surprise, surprise...

What's hurting Intel most right now is the culture among upper management of "we're the best, we'll figure it out, we don't need outside help". Pride comes before a fall, as they say, and Intel is still prideful and still falling. The only question remaining is how long before they get fresh blood that isn't bound by the sunk cost fallacy, and is willing to throw the whole 10nm mess (and potentially 7nm too now, it seems) on the garbage heap.

 

[john_]

We are all disappointed that they are failing to bring out proper competition to AMD Ryzens but come on.

Not all.

Personally I would love Intel becoming noncompetitive for a couple of years or more if needed. That way it will lose it's influence on OEMs and the tech press and give AMD the room needed to become a viable competitor to Intel. Intel is using it's money and influence the last 20 or more years, to secure an 80% or more of the market, even when having worst products. We need two companies that will have a 50-50 or at least a 60-40 percent of the market, not a company owning 80% of the market, pushing to 90% in some periods, thanks to its big pockets.

We all know what a "competitive Intel" means. Full control of the OEM and server market, full influence on the tech press and benchmark suites/sites. No thanks. Let Intel shrink a little, let AMD grow a lot, just so we can hope for a duopoly that works, not a duopoly that is a monopoly in disguise.

And you know this how? Obviously AMD is going to cash in on being the top dog for the time mean, they need the money, but ultra expensive...

They have a very competitive Zen 2 line of models in the market that they can keep selling. The XT models where made to keep Zen 2 prices up and the 5600XT fiasco showed us that AMD's mentality is changing. They will create a mess instead of dropping the MSRP price by 7-10%.

We now also know that they don't need to fear a responce from Intel. Only a price war that they can avoid by not pushing prices down. They can still sell cheap to OEMs, but in retail they will put higher prices to drive margins up and try to create the image of being the premium brand. If they don't try to convince consumers now, that the AMD brand is in fact the premium brand, when are they going to do it? When Intel starts throwing out more 10nm models or when they finaly fix their 7nm problems(they might never manage to fix those, but I bet at AMD they build strategies based on Intel's fast recovery in manufacturing just to be ready for that possibility).

Surprise, surprise...

What's hurting Intel most right now is the culture among upper management of "we're the best, we'll figure it out, we don't need outside help". Pride comes before a fall, as they say, and Intel is still prideful and still falling. The only question remaining is how long before they get fresh blood that isn't bound by the sunk cost fallacy, and is willing to throw the whole 10nm mess (and potentially 7nm too now, it seems) on the garbage heap.

It's not only that. It's the security they feel as long as OEMs stick with them, as long as most ITs keep choosing Xeons. They keep going from record revenue to record revenue. The pile of money is keep growing in front of them, hiding the train that is coming to run over them.

 

[londiste]

But how is a good CPU design going to help them if they can't produce it? I mean, it could be the best thing since sliced bread, but if they only get 10 chips per wafer, what it does it matter, as it's going to cost a fortune and no-one will buy it? Without a reliable process node, their CPU designs aren't going to help them get out of the hole they dug themselves into.

That was not quite what I meant. They have one problem to solve to get back in the game. When manufacturing process problem is solved (in whatever way, make a deal with TSMC or Samsung for all we care), they will hit the ground running.

 

[X71200]

That's like Nikola saying they make better electric semis than Tesla. lmao

Nikola does make better semis than Tesla though. Given Tesla's track record on reliability of their cars (especially now China) I'd much rather try Nikola. IIRC, they are also better specced / looking inside out. While having a huge hydrogen tank is not viable for cars, it actually makes a whole lot of sense for a semi due to the range anxiety on pure electric - while carrying a lot of weight too. The problem is not having enough hydrogen filling base stations. While this is still an issue (which Nikola states they'll try to fix in 2023), it doesn't make the truck itself bad.

I was looking at those Xeons I spoke about earlier and the lower end versions of them like Bronze are hilariously awful. They are based on the old iteration of Skylake-X, but with nothing that even made those good. They're locked, have no HT and no turbo. Base is around 1.5-2 Ghz, awful arrangement just like the CPU found in the Mac Pro. Intel is seriously still selling these.

AMD has a better for most things end user, like their only lack is native AVX-512 support, but that's not where they were headed first. They tried to take Intel down from the desktop market and they did most of it. Servers could still use their old Intel gear, depending on the size and needs of the cluster, and I think it is partly a case of that. Renoir is a far better CPU than the old Intel chip kinds of laptops still use. AMD is making a phone CPU too, they're putting their goods to where end consumer wants to see. I guess OEMs keep using massive trays of leftover Intel CPUs for their NUCs and whatnot (say 7200U), and this is a part of market they control...

 

[Assimilator]

As usual, a more comprehensive writeup from AT that reveals some very interesting details: https://www.anandtech.com/show/1592...ke-pragmatic-approach-in-using-3rd-party-fabs

Supposedly, this 7nm slip is due to a defect in the process that Intel is confident they have isolated and can fix (take that claim with a scoop of salt, but the fact that they are being specific about issues with 7nm vs the dead silence from continuing 10nm issues is positive).

But the most interesting snippet is this:

... the message from Intel is clear: they will do what they need to in order to deliver new products according to their release roadmap... including manufacturing a product entirely at a third-party fab if that is truly the best option

This tells me that the OEMs have made it very clear to Intel that unless the latter starts hitting its projected dates again, they are going to AMD. Evidently the tipping point between familiarity with Intel but having to deal with missed releases, vs AMD predictability but having to retool for it, has been reached.

Now, whether Intel actually takes that message seriously enough is anyone's guess - see my previous comments about pride and corporate culture - but it seems that Intel is finally feeling the pressure it should have felt back in 2017 when 10nm first slipped.

 

[TheLostSwede]

That was not quite what I meant. They have one problem to solve to get back in the game. When manufacturing process problem is solved (in whatever way, make a deal with TSMC or Samsung for all we care), they will hit the ground running.

If only it was that easy.

You can't simply take something designed for one process node and make it on someone else's process node. This is why companies have to stick to the foundry they've designed their part to made at.
There were some cross-compatibility at one point between GloFo, Samsung and someone else, but that was on something like 32 or 2x nm and still required a fair bit of extra work to move between the two foundries.

So say Intel would take anyone of their current products and move it to TSMC, they'd have to spend something like six months to just transition their designs to work with TSMC's process node, then most likely spend another couple of months to make sure the tape-out is successful and then tune that over the better part of six months to a year before they're running at a decent production rate. So no, Intel wouldn't hit the ground running, unless they designed a new chip from more or less scratch, specifically for the TSMC process node, which might be quicker than trying to transplant a current design based on Intel's process node.

In all fairness, Intel has already made some products on various TSMC process nodes, so they might be able to do things a little bit quicker because of that, but it's still going to be more or less a year from start to finish.

As usual, a more comprehensive writeup from AT that reveals some very interesting details: https://www.anandtech.com/show/1592...ke-pragmatic-approach-in-using-3rd-party-fabs

Supposedly, this 7nm slip is due to a defect in the process that Intel is confident they have isolated and can fix (take that claim with a scoop of salt, but the fact that they are being specific about issues with 7nm vs the dead silence from continuing 10nm issues is positive).

But the most interesting snippet is this:


This tells me that the OEMs have made it very clear to Intel that unless the latter starts hitting its projected dates again, they are going to AMD. Evidently the tipping point between familiarity with Intel but having to deal with missed releases, vs AMD predictability but having to retool for it, has been reached.

Now, whether Intel actually takes that message seriously enough is anyone's guess - see my previous comments about pride and corporate culture - but it seems that Intel is finally feeling the pressure it should have felt back in 2017 when 10nm first slipped.

The question that remains unanswered though is this: Does TSMC have enough capacity to manufacture for Intel? Assuming they would go with TSMC.
Samsung might have the capacity, but I'm not aware of anything Intel has ever made in one of Samsungs foundries.

 

[bonehead123]

mooooo.....mooooo.

Can ya smell what kinda milk da rock be cookin .........

 

[londiste]

If only it was that easy.

You can't simply take something designed for one process node and make it on someone else's process node. This is why companies have to stick to the foundry they've designed their part to made at.
There were some cross-compatibility at one point between GloFo, Samsung and someone else, but that was on something like 32 or 2x nm and still required a fair bit of extra work to move between the two foundries.

So say Intel would take anyone of their current products and move it to TSMC, they'd have to spend something like six months to just transition their designs to work with TSMC's process node, then most likely spend another couple of months to make sure the tape-out is successful and then tune that over the better part of six months to a year before they're running at a decent production rate. So no, Intel wouldn't hit the ground running, unless they designed a new chip from more or less scratch, specifically for the TSMC process node, which might be quicker than trying to transplant a current design based on Intel's process node.

I know it is not that easy. Intel has been talking about external manufacturing for Xe GPUs from the beginning so it shouldn't be a problem for those. I would be very surprised if Intel actually decided to outsource manufacturing CPUs. From what has been said, Intel has very different tools from what the rest of the industry uses so moving something core like CPUs to an external foundry would be a huge undertaking.

That was not meant as a realistic option, just an out of the blue example . Intel will likely figure out the manufacturing process sooner or later. By all indications there is enough money to bleed until they do.

 

[mtcn77]

When manufacturing process problem is solved

We have to see a precedent to come to believe it.
I think it is due to company culture. These discrete product segmentations cost Intel to skip mixed loads altogether. For instance, there was a time when Intel could halt the AMD surge into the streamer pc market. No one knew AMD back then, it was all singular workloads until concurrently cpu encoding at the same time showed up. The AMD multithreading prowess wasn't taken for serious.
It was their esram featured chips that didn't get the greenlight from the higher ups. They were much cheaper(market buffered) and possibly a better candidate than intel's mainstream cpus to extend feature support. If intel somehow made the slight performance, they would have a line up based on esram feature level(they said time and again they had 4 times the amount projected for a measly 4 core cpu, they could have extended to its own distinction).

 

[AusWolf]

More Skylake, yay!

 

[Th3pwn3r]

Let me guess......

10nm +++ that boost up to 5.5Ghz with big.LITTLE design that chew tons of power but miraculously competitive against 5nm EUV.

Maybe Intel should just consider shipping bare die locked CPU with cooler soldered on the top, at least user won't complain about temperature.

Lets hope 10nm +++ won't happen, Intel can't be this stubburn, they seems to realize AMD's threat already.

I just bought an i5-10600k and this sounds like Intel is already planning on stalling everything out or milking things dry. I get the pandemic slowing things down but with their history as of late...

 

[X71200]

I just bought an i5-10600k and this sounds like Intel is already planning on stalling everything out or milking things dry. I get the pandemic slowing things down but with their history as of late...

Might wait a bit and get that new Gigabyte board with the monoblock 360 AIO if you don't have a board, seems like the only thing making that platform worth it, somehow... (board is probably overpriced lol).

 

[medi01]

Uh, isn't Intel's 10nm denser than TSMC 7nm?

I suspect Intel's 7nm needs to be lined up against TSMC's "5".

It's not even remotely as bad as presented.

 

[john_]

It's not even remotely as bad as presented.

Well, people are jumping ship.

TSMC's 7nm are in a much better condition than Intel's 10nm. People can expect 5nm from TSMC to also be in good shape, but after that lattest announcement from Intel, 7nm is a huge questionmark. not even a "not so good node". It is a "huge question mark node".

 

[mtcn77]

sadly,I do.

That is quite a low vibe retort. It got lost on me.
This might devolve into gpu trolling stereotypes which steam charts are playing the joke in question. It won't go so lightly however. 860 is both cheap and dominant in a way fake virtual accounts in chinese cyber cafes cannot tip the balance.

 

[mechtech]

Meh, record profits though, just stay on 14nm until no more record profits