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

[AnarchoPrimitiv]

I honestly think this will end up being better for consumers in the long run. I think it's in everybody's best interest that AMD has at least five years of of "advantage" over Intel so that AMD can build up a "war chest" and be more entrenched when Intel finally reemerges.

While AMD has made great advances in the DIY space, they still need to gain more ground in mobile, OEM desktop, and enterprise. Ideally, AMD needs to get as close as possible to controlling 50% of the x86 T.A.M. in order to ensure that their current success isn't just a temporary salient that can be rolled back just as quickly.

I'm sure everyone here as enjoyed the spoils of the new competition, personally, five or six years ago, I didn't expect to have an 8, 12 and 16 core mainstream CPUs available at the prices for which they're currently available. If we want this trend to continue, and this competition to be a permanent fixture of the PC market, then I think we should be in favor of AMD having a few more years of success at Intel's expense.

 

[mtcn77]

It boggles me that Intel could afford 32/64/128mb esram, but went along with 128mb on its mainstream cpu whereas the xbox one console got 32mb. Where is the logic in that... how expendable can your hardware be. Intel, thus, seems to have quit scaling their product segments altogether.

 

[ppn]

make it 5 years, and sounds about right, just like 10nm, 2016 now 2021.

1 atom wide graphene is posponed indefinitely I suppose.

Why do they even bother with this 10/7nm thing when they can easily do 1 atom wide sub 1nm structures. Such a waste of time.

I guess they have a thing for opening and closing factories. Just doing stuff for the sake of doing it, doesnt matter that is pointless and obsoleted.

 

[X71200]

I'm sure everyone here as enjoyed the spoils of the new competition, personally, five or six years ago, I didn't expect to have an 8, 12 and 16 core mainstream CPUs available at the prices for which they're currently available. If we want this trend to continue, and this competition to be a permanent fixture of the PC market, then I think we should be in favor of AMD having a few more years of success at Intel's expense.

I would have expected it, having had X99 with couple 6 core CPUs, maybe not from AMD - but that was obvious after the introduction of Ryzen too.

It boggles me that Intel could afford 32/64/128mb esram, but went along with 128mb on its mainstream cpu whereas the xbox one console got 32mb. Where is the logic in that... how expendable can your hardware be. Intel, thus, seems to have quit scaling their product segments altogether.

My One S has always been a media device and will stay that way for me, the GPU is ancient-level weak and it was never good because of that. The new gen consoles are finally a step towards more actual hardware inside console.

 

[mtcn77]

My One S has always been a media device and will stay that way for me, the GPU is ancient-level weak and it was never good because of that. The new gen consoles are finally a step towards more actual hardware inside console.

Which is why ram costs more than half the total this time around. In case you missed, it is like 100% price rise just by its memory.
Esram had a valid place when main memory interface was dram. Obviously, for reasons...

 

[X71200]

Which is why ram costs more than half the total this time around. In case you missed, it is like 100% price rise just by its memory.
Esram had a valid place when main memory interface was dram. Obviously, for reasons...

Irrelevant, the primary intend of the console is gaming and for that, what matters the most is GPU. The GPU in One was already not in the same timeline segmentation of what was available when it got released, so it wasn't even any good back then. After couple years with price slashes and the introduction of X, which has a Polaris GPU, S could be found in throwaway bundle boxes laying on the ground in tech stores.

 

[mtcn77]

Irrelevant, the primary intend of the console is gaming and for that, what matters the most is GPU. The GPU in One was already not in the same timeline segmentation of what was available when it got released, so it wasn't even any good back then. After couple years with price slashes and the introduction of X, which has a Polaris GPU, S could be found in throwaway bundle boxes laying on the ground in tech stores.

Save that for cpu is what I'm saying anyway. It would take a weak gpu, but contrarily a high performance cpu to require the same amount of bandwidth. Intel just offered latency when instead, some bandwidth could extend market life in some cpu series that got relegated when ryzen showed up. It was a shower of rapid launches.

 

[cucker tarlson]

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.

seriously,I got no f***** idea what you're talking about 90% of the time
what gpu ? what steam charts ?
I just said I owned an 840 evo that was plagued with issues before samsung went with 40nm vnand

seriously,you talk like no other people.

 

[mtcn77]

seriously,I got no f***** idea what you're talking about 90% of the time
what gpu ?
I just said I owned an 840 evo

850 and 860 combined makes up 11% of total ssd market in userbenchmark. They weren't as popular until 3D-nand showed up. You are so forgetful...

 

[cucker tarlson]

850 and 860 combined makes up 11% of total ssd market in userbenchmark. They werent as popular until 3D-nand showed up. You are so forgetful...

what wasn't popular ?
samsung drives ?
are you serious ?

and what time periods are you even comparing ? how long was 840 there before 850 showed up and how long has 850 been on the market ?

 

[mtcn77]

what wasn't popular ?
samsung drives ?
are you serious ?

You have any counterarguments to make, or are you trying to dissolve the discussion into mindless rant...
Samsung wasn't a big player until 3d-nand. After that, they just cornered the semiconductor market and kept flash prices in control.

 

[X71200]

That crappy Userbenchmark didn't even exist pre-850. Samsung has been making SSDs for well over 10 years actually, the early old Corsair P128 for example was a Samsung drive. Though, the better stuff came specifically with 830 and above. They were becoming big before 3D-nand already, but the market was so filled with tons of different cheap Sandforce models with questionable firmware, the people in the know bought Samsung.

 

[Th3pwn3r]

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).

That sounds really cool, I'll check it out, I do already have an Asus board that was $299 so if it's features are as good and priced similarly then maybe I'll make a switch. It's already installed and completed but I'm not lazy

 

[RandallFlagg]

I don't think this means quite what people seem to think it means.

Been posted before and there are plenty of articles, but :

In terms of density :

Intel 14nm = TSMC 10/12nm
Intel 10nm = TSMC 7nm+
Intel 7nm = TSMC 5nm

Zen 2 = TSMC 7nm (1st gen). Intel 10nm is superior to this.

Zen 3 = TSMC 7nm+ (3rd gen). The latest TSMC node is slightly more dense than Intel 10nm (13%)
- I should point out that no one would call this a node advantage, Samsung 7nm is actually farther away from TSMC 7nm than this - it's like 1/8th of a "node".

Zen 4 = Assumed to be TSMC 5nm

What this means :

Zen 2 vs Comet Lake : Intel is behind 1 node (until mid 2020)
Zen 3 vs Rocket Lake : Intel is behind 1 node (until mid 2021)
Zen 3 vs Alder Lake : Parity on process node (Q3 2021 - Q3 2022)
Zen 4 vs Alder Lake : Intel behind 1 node (until 2022), Zen 4 is likely to be a Q4 2021 but nothing much is known

The reason for discrepancy in naming convention is that when Intel went to 14nm, they went to FinFet too. TSMC / Samsung / GloFlo called going to FinFet an entirely new node.

 

[TheLostSwede]

 

[efikkan]

For quite some time several in this forum has advocated for Intel to skip 10nm and "jump straight to" 7nm. But as we can see now, that wouldn't have helped at all. Even in the best case scenario, 7nm would provide low volume production late 2021, so we've known for a while that it could never have solved their 10nm problem.

The yield issues of 10nm are resolved, and while production volume is several times higher than last year, it's still too low to meet demand, and too low to cover mainstream desktop for now.

 

[kings]

I honestly think this will end up being better for consumers in the long run. I think it's in everybody's best interest that AMD has at least five years of of "advantage" over Intel so that AMD can build up a "war chest" and be more entrenched when Intel finally reemerges.

While AMD has made great advances in the DIY space, they still need to gain more ground in mobile, OEM desktop, and enterprise. Ideally, AMD needs to get as close as possible to controlling 50% of the x86 T.A.M. in order to ensure that their current success isn't just a temporary salient that can be rolled back just as quickly.

I'm sure everyone here as enjoyed the spoils of the new competition, personally, five or six years ago, I didn't expect to have an 8, 12 and 16 core mainstream CPUs available at the prices for which they're currently available. If we want this trend to continue, and this competition to be a permanent fixture of the PC market, then I think we should be in favor of AMD having a few more years of success at Intel's expense.

The thing is, lack of competition leads to stagnation. For example, If Intel disappears "from the map" in the CPU space for 5 years, do you think AMD will continue at this pace? They will milk customers as much as they can, like any other company.

We must wish is strong competition, not the failure of others, otherwise we return to the same, only with the names reversed. Weak competition always leads to stagnation.

 

[Aldain]

AMD should be on 5nm by the time Intel is on 7nm, right?

More like TSMC 3nm

 

[trparky]

By all indications there is enough money to bleed until they do.

That's not exactly a happy thought you know. Sure, they've got money to burn alright but what about public relations? Their image that they've so artfully crafted over the last decade is starting to look not so clean anymore.

You can see that in online forums where it used to be "Intel or nothing at all!" but now people are recommending AMD products to more people than I've ever seen in years past. If you had told me five years ago that this very scenario would be playing out today, I (and many others) would've laughed you out of the room and rightfully so. Yet, that scenario is exactly what's playing out today.

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

Yeah, and all the while their 14nm++++++++ chips will continue to run hotter and hotter while also have more and more yield issues. They can't keep going on like this.

For example, If Intel disappears "from the map" in the CPU space for 5 years, do you think AMD will continue at this pace?

I for one hope that Lisa Su wouldn't allow for that. I think that she's far smarter than that to do such a stupid move.

You have to keep striving, you have to keep innovating, you have to keep moving forward because the moment you stop for whatever reason, your competition will be right behind you and pass you by. This is what is happening to Intel right now. Intel stopped and now AMD ran past them.

 

[Assimilator]

View attachment 163343

f

The yield issues of 10nm are resolved

I don't buy this. If they're resolved, why is 7nm still in trouble? The only explanation is that 7nm is different from 10nm yet again... but why would 7nm be different from 10nm, unless 10nm was irrevocably broken?

The thing is, lack of competition leads to stagnation. For example, If Intel disappears "from the map" in the CPU space for 5 years, do you think AMD will continue at this pace? They will milk customers as much as they can, like any other company.

We must wish is strong competition, not the failure of others, otherwise we return to the same, only with the names reversed. Weak competition always leads to stagnation.

Nobody is saying Intel should fail. Competition will be strengthened if AMD is able to reach a point where they are able to compete with Intel in terms of marketshare even if their products aren't necessarily better, and AMD probably isn't quite there yet. A couple more years will give them that time.

 

[X71200]

The "Intel or nothing at all" was primarily because Excavator architecture came out only to drill its own grave. There were talks of an architecture coming from AMD before Zen's launch, and that is what you have today being perfected.

 

[Th3pwn3r]

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).

Just looked at and saw the price of that board. It's not for me. The looks for one reason and the price. I'd buy 4 other boards before one of those. I'm not cheap but there's no justifying buying that board for me. I'd rather spend money on amplifiers, speakers and subwoofers( home theater).

 

[kapone32]

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.

I really believe AMD truly does not care about Intel's prices. They are basically selling them as fast as they can make them right now. It is a hope that is not too exotic that we will see performance improvements in IPC and clock speed without building more cores. I also believe the single CCX CPU line will be a reality in both APUs and CPUs. In terms of the thread by the time Intel actually releases 7nm AMD should have the DIY market undisputed sewn up.

 

[X71200]

Just looked at and saw the price of that board. It's not for me. The looks for one reason and the price. I'd buy 4 other boards before one of those. I'm not cheap but there's no justifying buying that board for me. I'd rather spend money on amplifiers, speakers and subwoofers( home theater).

You sure you're looking at the AIO version and not the Xtreme with just the block? I don't think the Aorus Master Waterforce sells yet, haven't seen price for it.

 

[efikkan]

I don't buy this. If they're resolved, why is 7nm still in trouble? The only explanation is that 7nm is different from 10nm yet again... but why would 7nm be different from 10nm, unless 10nm was irrevocably broken?

They are different nodes. I don't know where people got the idea that 7nm would be automatically better, even with EUV. 7nm will have its own issues to be resolved.