AT: Intel’s Manufacturing Roadmap from 2019 to 2029: Back Porting, 7nm, 5nm, 3nm, 2nm, and 1.4 nm

Geforcepat said:
Lol:ROFLMAO:@ any long term roadmap from intel. And i don't understand the comments that intel wont be around in 10 years. i'm assuming they're joking. If not they're knuckle heads to put it nicely.
Click to expand...

Probably both ;)

mikeo said:
Seems a bit optimistic given their 14nm history.
Click to expand...

Really, they effed up on one of the possible routes to ~10nm and smaller, and then doubled down. Their history prior is indicative of their continued march against Moore's Law.
 
Mega6 said:
Not very analogous to Intel's repeated quad core (2) releases on same tweaked core redundancy that we have had since 2006. That is purposeful stagnation. At least AMD tried something different to try and revolutionize the field. Intel really has nothing to compare in terms of effort or "new" since 2006.
Click to expand...

Did you get your AMD tatoo yet? Have you posted in the Pictures thread?

Seriously -- Intel boosted performance, provided innovative features (that AMD is copying), and kept prices lower than they needed to given that they were their own competition and AMD was nowhere to be found outside of the bargain bin. And despite their 'stagnation', which is fair, Intel is still the performance leader in many CPU markets and the volume leader by at least an order of magnitude.
 
Mega6 said:
Bulldozer (2011) was the followup to Phenom II (2008). Just because AMD's Bulldozer architecture was not well received is not indicative that AMD did nothing. Bulldozer was a "daring" design that tried to predict where software needs were going.

Not very analogous to Intel's repeated quad core (2) releases on same tweaked core redundancy that we have had since 2006. That is purposeful stagnation. At least AMD tried something different to try and revolutionize the field. Intel really has nothing to compare in terms of effort or "new" since 2006.

It's pretty clear what company has sat on their ass. The one that got left behind,
Click to expand...

Nehalem was a HUGE bump in performance and pretty big change from core 2. Sandy bridge was also pretty large in terms of performance gain.

K10 was kind of meh. Just because bulldozer was a huge departure arc. Wise doesn't mean AMD didn't sit on their asses during the dominance of k8. They did. Thanks Hector ruiz.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Did you get your AMD tatoo yet? Have you posted in the Pictures thread?

Seriously -- Intel boosted performance, provided innovative features (that AMD is copying), and kept prices lower than they needed to given that they were their own competition and AMD was nowhere to be found outside of the bargain bin. And despite their 'stagnation', which is fair, Intel is still the performance leader in many CPU markets and the volume leader by at least an order of magnitude.
Click to expand...

fixed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
sabrewolf732 said:
Nehalem was a HUGE bump in performance and pretty big change from core 2. Sandy bridge was also pretty large in terms of performance gain.

K10 was kind of meh. Just because bulldozer was a huge departure arc. Wise doesn't mean AMD didn't sit on their asses during the dominance of k8. They did. Thanks Hector ruiz.
Click to expand...

Your reference of "big jumps" by intel can easily be compared to the Zen2 release. Performance "jumps" are not always indicative of the actual effort or "new arch", You sort of glazed over my point - that AMD has tried more often and with more progressive designs.
 
Mega6 said:
Your reference of "big jumps" by intel can easily be compared to the Zen2 release. Performance "jumps" are not always indicative of the actual effort or "new arch", You sort of glazed over my point - that AMD has tried more often and with more progressive designs.
Click to expand...

Yet they haven't.
 
Mega6 said:
Your reference of "big jumps" by intel can easily be compared to the Zen2 release. Performance "jumps" are not always indicative of the actual effort or "new arch", You sort of glazed over my point - that AMD has tried more often and with more progressive designs.
Click to expand...

Nehalem was a huge departure vs. core 2. It added triple channel memory, an IMC, and SMT and I'm sure a host of other things. It's more comparable to the jump AMD made with k7 to k8. I'd argue sandy is similar to zen 1 to zen 2.
 
sabrewolf732 said:
Nehalem was a huge departure vs. core 2. It added triple channel memory, an IMC, and SMT and I'm sure a host of other things. It's more comparable to the jump AMD made with k7 to k8. I'd argue sandy is similar to zen 1 to zen 2.
Click to expand...

That makes sense.

edit: To say AMD sat on their ass while developing Bulldozer is a misrepresentation.
 
Last edited:
IdiotInCharge said:
How?

Where's my ultrabook CPU? Where's my 5GHz gaming octocore? Where's my > quad-core APU?
Click to expand...

Those are niche markets and you know it. Ill concede AMD is lacking in the portable market. Also, with appropriate memory timings the performance difference between a 5GHz intel and Zen 2 platform is negligible
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
IdiotInCharge said:
Bigger than that, really, as not only did IPC increase, but clockspeeds shot up too -- especially with overclocking, which AMD cannot do.
Click to expand...

I'd have to look up performance % improvements, but I think zen 2 had bigger perf. gains vs zen 1 than sandy vs nehalem no?
 
sabrewolf732 said:
I'd have to look up performance % improvements, but I think zen 2 had bigger perf. gains vs zen 1 than sandy vs nehalem no?
Click to expand...

Likely similar before overclocking, but after? Not even close.

sabrewolf732 said:
Those are niche markets and you know it. Ill concede AMD is lacking in the portable market.
Click to expand...

Mobile isn't niche -- that's where the money is in the consumer market. Enthusiasts like us here don't even reach a margin of error in terms of marketshare. AMD is chasing brand recognition, not marketshare, in the consumer space.

sabrewolf732 said:
Also, with appropriate memory timings the performance difference between a 5GHz intel and Zen 2 platform is negligible
Click to expand...

Which will cost you ;). But yeah, it's definitely close enough, and you'd have to get really specific with your requirements to merit an Intel CPU recommendation from me for a performance desktop.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
How?

Where's my ultrabook CPU? Where's my 5GHz gaming octocore? Where's my > quad-core APU?
Click to expand...
Muh five gigahurtz! Seriously dude it's irrelevant when zen2 IPC is higher and they reach parity gaming in most titles and slaughter elsewhere at far less power or vulnerabilities.
Ultrabook is q1. Besides most mobile aren't Ultrabook, plenty of people are fine with perfectly adequate Zen+ mobile perf, quite a few corporates have now acquired them for their fleet updates. That said I can't wait for the 7nm apu butthurt to begin in ' real world workloads'.
 
N4CR said:
Muh five gigahurtz! Seriously dude it's irrelevant when zen2 IPC is higher and they reach parity gaming in most titles and slaughter elsewhere at far less power or vulnerabilities.
Ultrabook is q1. Besides most mobile aren't Ultrabook, plenty of people are fine with perfectly adequate Zen+ mobile perf, quite a few corporates have now acquired them for their fleet updates. That said I can't wait for the 7nm apu butthurt to begin in ' real world workloads'.
Click to expand...

So not here yet?

Gotcha.
 
Grimlaking said:
It's come out that this version of the chart was faked.
Click to expand...

Anandtech updated the article, and I have updated the first post with that text, and the original Intel slide:

Update: After some emailing back and forth, we can confirm that the slide that Intel's partner ASML presented at the IEDM conference is actually an altered version of what Intel presented for the September 2019 source. ASML added animations to the slide such that the bottom row of dates correspond to specific nodes, however at the time we didn't spot these animations (neither did it seem did the rest of the press). It should be noted that the correlation that ASML made to exact node names isn't so much a stretch of the imagination to piece together, however it has been requested that we also add the original Intel slide to provide context to what Intel is saying compared to what was presented by ASML. Some of the wording in the article has changed to reflect this. Our analysis is still relevant.

​
 
Last edited:
sabrewolf732 said:
Those are niche markets and you know it. Ill concede AMD is lacking in the portable market. Also, with appropriate memory timings the performance difference between a 5GHz intel and Zen 2 platform is negligible
Click to expand...

How to make AMD even fasterer:

Take a sedative.
Make reallly big eyes, and hold them that way.
 
Snowdog said:
Anandtech updated the article, and I have updated the first post with that text, and the original Intel slide:

Update: After some emailing back and forth, we can confirm that the slide that Intel's partner ASML presented at the IEDM conference is actually an altered version of what Intel presented for the September 2019 source. ASML added animations to the slide such that the bottom row of dates correspond to specific nodes, however at the time we didn't spot these animations (neither did it seem did the rest of the press). It should be noted that the correlation that ASML made to exact node names isn't so much a stretch of the imagination to piece together, however it has been requested that we also add the original Intel slide to provide context to what Intel is saying compared to what was presented by ASML. Some of the wording in the article has changed to reflect this. Our analysis is still relevant.

​
Click to expand...


https://www.tomshardware.com/news/i...-transistors-and-other-bleeding-edge-research
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top