Intel Is "Very Pleased" with the Progress of Its 7nm Process

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Megalith, Dec 9, 2018.

  1. Megalith

    Megalith 24-bit/48kHz Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,004
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Speaking in an investor call last week, Intel Chief Engineering Officer Murthy Renduchintala seemed enthusiastic about where his company was at regarding its 7nm process technology, which will utilize EUV. Renduchintala noted that he was “very pleased with our progress on 7” and suggested the parts would be out “according to our original internal plans.”

    One thing I will say is that as you look at 7-nanometer, for us this is really now a point in time where we will get EUV back into the manufacturing matrix, and therefore, I think, that will give us a degree of back to the traditional Moore’s Law cadence that we were really talking about. 14 and 10 were really about double patterning and quad patterning in the absence of EUV.
     
  2. Z3r0k3wl

    Z3r0k3wl [H]Lite

    Messages:
    124
    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2014
    It's not as if the project is well over budget and missed several deadlines.
     
  3. DooKey

    DooKey [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    8,139
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Intel won't stay down long. They just have too much money to throw at their problems.
     
    craigdt, Jza, Chimpee and 3 others like this.
  4. bugleyman

    bugleyman [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,227
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    What else are they going to say? Transparency isn't exactly valued or rewarded by the market.
     
  5. ZippZ

    ZippZ n00b

    Messages:
    25
    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    I dont put faith into that vague interview. They had some challenges with 10nm?
    And theyre pleased with their progress on 7nm per internal plans? So Intels internal plans for 7nm could be 2050 and be 2% of the way there and that statement would still be accurate.
     
    noko likes this.
  6. Formula.350

    Formula.350 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,107
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2011
    My takeaway from this...
    "We've fucked up on 10nm, but can't admit that or our stocks will tumble... So how can be distract everyone from this fact...."
    and
    "Everyone is talking about our 10nm woes, which on top of that we're now under immense pressure from AMD, who for the first time is going to be operating on a superior process than us... Sooooo ideas? YES! We can drop some info on our 'own' 7nm node and try to say it's doing great and on track.... according to our *coughinternalcough* road map! :D"

    But yea, "pleased with our progress on 7nm" to me translates into "It's doing better than [see: not a dumperster fire] our 10nm has been", and then "according to our internal plans" wreaks of "It's not going to debut for, at minimum, a year after our competitor's 7nm products..."

    Which again is all bluffs and poker face, both of which need to be prefixed with "bad".
    My armchair-2cents.
     
    wolfofone, joobjoob and Peter2k like this.
  7. Galvin

    Galvin 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,695
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    They'll have to go into chiplets. The flexibility of them is just too good. If you watched adored TV you'll see
     
  8. Formula.350

    Formula.350 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,107
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2011
    In fairness, Intel already road the Chiplets train... Sorta. Lest we forget the old Quad-Core Core2 with dual dies, and the Core i with separate GPU die. Whether or not they did well isn't the point, just that they did it, and abandoned it.

    However, that doesn't really speak to the validity of the 'design', since they only utilized it as a stop-gap and AMD is using it as a step-forward. Therefore, AMD will have taken many things into account to make sure everything works as best it can in this scenario.
     
    drescherjm and dragonstongue like this.
  9. Crystoff

    Crystoff [H]Lite

    Messages:
    111
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2017
    As it is a flagship US tech company, I have to wish Intel success in this. But I also have to hope that its 10nm fiasco - and AMD's design talent and efforts - have enabled AMD to recover a permanent competitive slot in the market. Intel has proven that with no serious competition they will just milk a stagnating market, and their world technical lead will decay. In that sense they need an AMD as much as we consumers do.
     
  10. dragonstongue

    dragonstongue 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,156
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    "Our own internal plans"

    That can mean anything and everything all at the same time LMAO. They seem to be caught up in selling loose information as "factual" such as that fiasco with the (forget name) of chip they demo running massive Ghz clocks to "take" shine away from AMD launch at a trade show "claiming" anyone can easily achieve suck clock speeds with this new chip..what they did not showcase was the fact it was running a stupid expensive cooling solution to come close to that level hat majority of people would not be able to afford nor have the power mains power to run it properly.

    All in for HALO type pushing boundaries products, but they honestly should be more "real" when doing such things, the devil is very much in the details.

    Say it like it is instead of making "cheap" claims to try and prevent others from making sales and/or make quick bucks by pulling the wool over people's eyes...not sure why they (Intel/Nv/Apple and others) continue to act in this fashion.

    Say it like it is "Our 10nm was obviously way off track, so we increased production of our 14nm designs which so far have done well, we also put more effort on our other team who has been working with on 7nm design, they are doing well though it likely is at least a year or so away from being where we need/want it to be prior to launching for revenue" ^.^
     
    Formula.350 likes this.
  11. DPI

    DPI Nitpick Police

    Messages:
    10,960
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2013
    giphy.gif
     
    wolfofone and DooKey like this.
  12. opfreak

    opfreak Gawd

    Messages:
    763
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Came here to say this.

    7mm is on track, the internal plans say it will release 4 years after 10mm.
     
  13. mt2e

    mt2e Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    392
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    I really hope we start seeing Ryan Shrout's influence at Intel soon.
     
  14. Crystoff

    Crystoff [H]Lite

    Messages:
    111
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2017
    So - you want things to work the other way around?
     
  15. STEM

    STEM Gawd

    Messages:
    582
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
  16. joobjoob

    joobjoob Gawd

    Messages:
    543
    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    That statement has more "wiggle" room then an anorexic in a moomoo.
     
    Revdarian, kromc5 and phawkins633 like this.
  17. ole-m

    ole-m Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    451
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Unfortunately it is impossible to make these things "faster" which makes 2020 the earliest comeback year but I suspect they don't even have design ready for that thus 2021, they won't go bust...
    They have many other areas and chips that will sell just fine without issues (Modem, FPGA, xeon Phi + an 40% at Minimum x86 marketshare if they fail until 2021.

    amd will rake in marketshare and mindshare, after that I do sincerely hope Intel gets back in the game and we have healthy competition :)
     
  18. SickBeast

    SickBeast Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    498
    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    What about 10nm? I guess Intel doesn't want to talk about that?

    Talk about a corporation getting caught flat footed. Why haven't they developed an ARM product by now?

    AMD is going to stomp Intel this year, and then they'll both get stomped by Apple and whoever else can develop a superior ARM based CPU, which isn't exactly hard at this point.
     
  19. Skull_Angel

    Skull_Angel [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,483
    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    "Fake it, 'til you make it." Because the investors demand progress. :D
     
  20. ManofGod

    ManofGod [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,055
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Throwing money at the problem does not make the problem magically go away. :D Otherwise, why do we still have poor people?
     
    LightsOut41 likes this.
  21. Formula.350

    Formula.350 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,107
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2011
    *refrains from bringing politics into the thread* :pompous: lol

    They call it "Atom". Seriously, I'm sure they find it more than enough competition for ARM. What we think about that is irrelevant to them, right up until our money stops buying products where they had a huge marketshare, but since they don't have much in that space they don't care. As long as the majority of low power tablets and netbooks are Atom powered, they'll be happy. They've even developed it into a damn server chip! heh

    They also dabbled in the other end of where ARM has a footing (now), with microcontrollers, ala the Intel Edison... Which *trumpets sound*... was powered by a dual-core Atom! At the time, as I recall, it was rather powerful compared to the ARM options, but whether it consumed less power I don't know. It sure was small, though! Yet, the decided to discontinue it *shrug* I suspect that after Intel bought Altera (FPGA, competitor of Xilinx) back in late 2015, that they didn't see much need in the Edison anymore.
    After looking at Altera's Wiki page, seems perhaps they may not need ARM in a technical sense, as it looks like an Altera FPGA can operate as an ARM Cortex M1 in software (emulate?) or an M9 in hardware? Not fully sure what that IP section meant heh
    There was also an actual Arduino-platform, the Galileo, also powered by the Atom-arch "Quark" cores, but single 400Mhz instead of dual. (They apparently even had a "Quark" chip running at 32MHz hah!)

    Either way, Intel canned that and I can't imagine they are too interested in getting back into that area. They have Apple using their Modems, and they seem content enough to have that foothold in the phone market. (I suspect the Intel powered phones died along with the Edison/Quark, but I don't honestly know and didn't care enough to research that far into it...)
     
  22. Mega6

    Mega6 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,946
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2017
    ARM sheesh. Amd almost went out of business doing that. Good thing they didn’t pull the trigger.

    Arm is good for a few select workloads on the server end and dumb devices. Don’t believe the hype that it’s just going to replace x86/64. I’ve read enough stupid stock analyst reports on that today already.
     
  23. Gideon

    Gideon 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,327
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    2020 is the soonest you will see 7nm from Intel. 2019 is likely to be a year Intel wont want to talk about how things are going. I also expect no desktop chips on 10nm only a mobile for 10nm. I just dont see them getting multiple masks to work with the quantities needed for desktop use and the speed needed. I also dont want Intel to fall behind too far as we need them both to keep prices and innovation where we want them.
     
  24. Smashing Young Man

    Smashing Young Man [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,541
    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Funny how node size is the inverse of penis size when it comes to bragging rights.
     
  25. Formula.350

    Formula.350 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,107
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2011
    But the exact same for vaginas: the tighter (the gates) the better :p
     
  26. noko

    noko [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,359
    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Except Intel was also looking at a double ended sword - AMD goes down or out of business due to Intel progressing at a rapid rate which they where when Athlon scared them. Then AntiTrust kicks in and dissolves Intel or they loose their exclusive X86 license. AMD Bulldozer not only put the hurts on AMD it also slowed down the industry. Intel probably fears more loosing their exclusive license, shared with AMD and competing against Samsung, TSMC and whoever else if they lost it. Just some thoughts.
     
    drescherjm likes this.
  27. Pieter3dnow

    Pieter3dnow [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,789
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    https://hardforum.com/threads/amd-c...nch-timetables.1923846/page-2#post-1042791793
    (Intel prediction)
    People believe in Intel this thread is somewhat weird now it is almost 2 years ago (2 months short) and look at all the comments following. No one back then thought that Intel would not be able to do these things that were based on what exactly?

    And that is the problem for Intel their message is so seen as gospel that you get people to assume Intel can not fail it has to much money.
    I think that it is hurting Intel more then anything because their failure at 10nm is so bad that PR wise it is hard to overcome but where is the proof that 7nm ofr Intel is working fine because that is where you can proof what you are saying is true.

    To turn back the the thread I posted. It is not relevant what you can produce in PR statements it is relevant what you can bring to the market. The assumptions run rampant from these statements As you can see from history .....
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2018
  28. sparks

    sparks 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,206
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2004
    we are soooooo happy. please don't let our stock prices fall again
     
  29. Formula.350

    Formula.350 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,107
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2011
    AMD knows this first hand. Forever they were seen as a producer of non-competitive chips for budget systems. Then out of no where, Athlon Classic is released and, though some no doubt won't feel the same way, the Athlon pretty much was the king until around the time AM2 came out when Intel ditch NetBurst in favor of an evolved Tualatin P-III with the Core Duo. Phenom I didn't help matters, Phenom II kept them in general contention (in aspects), with the X6 being a very good move on their part... Alas, we have Bulldozer, AMD's "Pentium 4" in a lot of ways, which as the saying goes... "Mistakes were made."

    Phenom II not being quite as good as the Core 2 and early Core i chips started the trend of people losing faith in AMD, and Bulldozer just was what left a bad taste in everyone's mouth. They may have been down, but thankfully not out, and we have Ryzen now! You could call this AMD's "Nehalem", and what I personally feel to be the rightful successor of the Phenom II X6 (but again, I liked the X6, still have my 1090T).

    Point is, AMD hyped up Bulldozer and claimed a bunch of stuff that ultimately didn't happen, so when they kept saying good things are happening and more lackluster events happened (with futher Dozer revisions, as well as bumps in the road on GPUs compared to nV). Ultimately, people didn't feel they could take AMD's word as believable without any hard evidence, and that's seemingly where Intel is right now. Maybe the Intel fans want to think of it as Intel doing a kindness, letting AMD catch up, which if so then that's their prerogative heh (Not saying they do think that, at least if so, I've not heard anyone say it) Which could be true to a certain extent, who knows. Though I definitely say that the 10nm issues would have nothing to do with that potential 'kindness' and are real issues which caught them off guard.


    Regardless, I think why the rest of us are so overly-critical of Intel is because they haven't been releasing anything stellar lately --be that intentional or a byproduct of their 10nm issues is rather moot-- and yet continue to charge a premium for it. Wasn't there a time where we would get refreshes but they came at a non-crazy price... I could just be dillusional but, I would swear that was once the case... Though technically, AMD did it with Ryzen I guess. The 1800X launched at $499, and the refreshed 2700X "Zen+" chip launched at $329. By comparison, the i7 6700K launched at $339. Its refresh, the 7700K launched at.... $339. And the refreshed-refresh 8700K launched at? Yea, $359. Honorably Mention to, sinceit at least packed double the cores despite qualifiably being yet again a refresh, the i7 9700K which launched for $379.
    (NOTE: these prices are all MSRP, and at least on the AMD ones, their initial street price; the Intel pricing was taken directly from Intel's ARK pages for each of the three processors).

    [/ramble]
     
    Pieter3dnow likes this.