Intel Kills off the 10nm Process

pcgeekesq said:
Careful there, there's no real standard for what "10nm" or "7nm" means across manufacturers.
Intel's 10nm process should (but might not) have higher component density than its 14nm,
but Samsung/TSMC's 7nm isn't necessarily more dense than Intel's 10nm.
Click to expand...


There is an ITRS standard.

It's just that no one follows it anymore. Intel did for a long time, but even they have started relaxing and not meeting it in the last couple of generations.
 
INTC closed up 2.29% on the news.
So "the money" isn't taking SA's report as "news," either because they think it's fake or because they have known for a while.
Probably the former.
 
pcgeekesq said:
INTC closed up 2.29% on the news.
So "the money" isn't taking SA's report as "news," either because they think it's fake or because they have known for a while.
Probably the former.
Click to expand...

Intel is immune to almost everything it seems. Doesn't matter what they do. A billion set aside for fines? THANK YOU for that mosquito bite, EU and US. Imma invest my time "innovating" new ways to sell 4 cores and have people drool over them. That went for quite a while, didn't it
 
I have been hearing talk of how Intel would ROFLSTOMP AMD when they came with Zen and just go with 10nm and even before that 10nm was a good reason to not even dare to make anything for years.

If you followed multiple stories around the 10nm fab problems and the contracts Intel had were not going as planned then why wonder that 10nm got axed?
https://semiaccurate.com/?s=10nm

https://semiaccurate.com/2018/07/02...down-is-crushing-a-20b-market-cap-tech-giant/

You can claim all the stories are false but in that respect where are the glorious 10nm products I mean the 10nm products that outperform their 14nm++ counterparts ..
https://semiaccurate.com/2018/08/02/intel-guts-10nm-to-get-it-out-the-door/

https://semiaccurate.com/2018/05/29/is-intels-upcoming-10nm-launch-real-or-a-pr-stunt/

The chip in the Ideapad 330 is a Cannon Lake based 10nm CPU from Intel that has been blessed with the marketing name Core i3-8121U. If you look at the main Ark page this part isn’t currently listed but if you search for it specifically you end up on a spec page. There are a lot of interesting bits to be gleaned from this page starting with the name. 8121U connotes a low end i3, the lowest end of the non-crippled all that much range. Think products that go into bottom-feeder special laptops, then step up half of a notch. Volume, not quality.
Click to expand...

In the end we have a chip being built on a troubled 10nm process. In six months Intel can make 15% of a day’s production on those production lines. The resultant chips are abjectly broken, they are 2+1 but the +1 doesn’t work which means they are selling a CPU with half the die turned off, an expensive proposition given the cost of the process and the shatteringly low yields. Even with the GPU turned off, the resultant CPU uses twice the power of the 14nm devices to run slower than those with a GPU.
Click to expand...

Why do people find it far fetched that 10nm is not something Intel even wants ?
 
I'm not sure 10nm is really ever gonna pay off for intel. Its not gonna be the cashcow 14nm has been for them.
 
If they did kill 10nm off they would lie about it to protect share prices anyway.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
I have been hearing talk of how Intel would ROFLSTOMP AMD when they came with Zen and just go with 10nm and even before that 10nm was a good reason to not even dare to make anything for years.
Click to expand...

You should get your hearing checked.

Pieter3dnow said:
You can claim all the stories are false
Click to expand...

You just used SemiAccurrate to validate... SemiAccurate. No claims need to be made.

Pieter3dnow said:
Why do people find it far fetched that 10nm is not something Intel even wants ?
Click to expand...

Intel wants to make money. It's what they're good at.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
You should get your hearing checked.
You just used SemiAccurrate to validate... SemiAccurate. No claims need to be made.
Intel wants to make money. It's what they're good at.
Click to expand...

You meant shoot the messenger ignore the message. Works for you right ;)
Why don't you check what Charlie says about the 10nm product that is already in the shops , you can buy it today then do the mathematics.

I never heard anyone with a fab getting money from really bad yields but if you care to explain how exactly give Intel a call you have a rosy future ;)
 
Pieter3dnow said:
You meant shoot the messenger ignore the message. Works for you right ;)
Click to expand...

You gonna quote tabloids next?

Pieter3dnow said:
I never heard anyone with a fab getting money from really bad yields but if you care to explain how exactly give Intel a call you have a rosy future ;)
Click to expand...

Which proves SA correct? Bad yields now means that they've conclusively abandoned it? And by conclusive we mean SA made it up :ROFLMAO:
 
Darth Ender said:
so can we safely assume that 90% of news specific to a company are BS aimed at day trading?

I'd imagine they're not even aimed at people directly, but targeting algorithms that competing firms use to make their hyper-fast short term trades.

There's a money war going on and it leverages stupid social media sites to spread misinformation so they can adjust stock prices the way they want for a few minutes (the key being they can predict what will happen and when for that short period of time after a new story breaks).

We aren't going to see a stop of this kind of market manipulation until they make rules that state that stocks must be fully acquired and held for a certain amount of reasonable time (1 continuous 24 hour period) before they can be sold again. Short term trading like you see with the ultra rich (with their insane low latency connections to markets and algorithms that trade thousands of stocks every second) is a cancer to the system and needs to be stopped.
Click to expand...

Regardless of your point, Charlie has had a raging hardon for the demise of Intel and Nvidia for a long time now. Even the slightest hint at a delay from either lights his Christmas tree.
 
As the dumbest person in this thread I’m curious about something.
If you keep dropping the ball on 10nm, why is Intel acting like 7nm is some sort of relief?
Wouldn’t 7nm add more problems.

And how is it that AMD can have 7nm already.
Did they make Ryzen so different it can leapfrog over Intel?
 
14nm? 10nm? 7nm???

Penis_joke_is_obvious_by_SmashedWindow.jpg
 
jamesv said:
As the dumbest person in this thread I’m curious about something.
If you keep dropping the ball on 10nm, why is Intel acting like 7nm is some sort of relief?
Wouldn’t 7nm add more problems.

And how is it that AMD can have 7nm already.
Did they make Ryzen so different it can leapfrog over Intel?
Click to expand...
Basically, they've been developing these different architectural nodes (12nm, 10nm, 7nm) in parallel, and had a set schedule to complete them, begin testing, ramp up, and volume. Well, 10nm isn't working out too well, and is way behind schedule. Their 7nm design is getting near completion. There is the option to just scrap 10nm (call it a loss) and redirect funds which were going to 10nm development toward 7nm. The smaller node would save them money compared to 10nm, and they may not have even used 10nm for long due to how far behind schedule it was. If 7nm was designed around different fab technology than 10nm (likely), then issues with manufacturing and yields may not be as prevalent.

That is all assuming Intel's 7nm is close to usable, and ignores probably many factors that they would want to consider, but that's the thought that goes behind that idea.
 
Intel should just merge with TSMC, that might solve all their problems.
 
Charlie responded to Intel's denial and he said that he stands by his report, basically calling Intel out as lying about it.
 
The article is basically worthless without the analysis, which is held ransom behind a $1K/yr. paywall. When the wall went up I stopped reading. It was different when he was freely available to read on the Inq...
 
IdiotInCharge said:
AMD doesn't- they don't own fabs.
Click to expand...

I misunderstood AMDs Presentation obviously.
OTOH I’m enjoying the competition AMD has caused.

I’m running a small recording facility and building stage worthy 1U PCs.
I remember when Tyan Tiger mainboards with Dual Athlon MPs ruled.
Glad to have them back.

I still have to use the fastest single core performing CPUs regardless of cost.
So Intel has been winning that for years now.
Would love to see AMD Zen2 CPUs with big IPC gains.

Great info in these threads.

Thanks
 
Mr. Bluntman said:
The article is basically worthless without the analysis, which is held ransom behind a $1K/yr. paywall. When the wall went up I stopped reading. It was different when he was freely available to read on the Inq...
Click to expand...

Charlie's paywall is $1000 a year? lol, omg.
 
Nobu said:
That's less than most cable bills, but still outrageous. Edit: well about equal to a cable bill ($83/mo) before hbo, etc.
Click to expand...

I wish my cable bill was only $83 and have no premium channels at all.
 
Lol the same Intel said 10nm was all going on track and then it was all of a sudden delayed, then they had 'inventory product, improving yields' etc etc after they launched those 10nm leonovo lemons this year. (On a side note I'd love to buy one as they will probably be collectable one day as the ode to 10nm being a failure). Those Laptops regressed in all performance aspects (less clock, more power, less speed) and had a worse than 50% yield as they couldn't even enable the damn iGPU or get better than a dual core out of a quad die lol.

DeathFromBelow said:
I'll believe Intel's denial when we actually see these fabled 10nm products.
Click to expand...
As above, they did launch a 10nm laptop... barely. If yield was any worse it would've been a single core!


I'd say skipping to 5 or 7nm is a better move at this point as they're about to be left behind at the end of this year. But Intel has it's own' fabs.. so doing that is far, far more difficult than hitting up TSMC for a few libraries and wafer starts.
10nm and how it is managed may make or break Intels image for the next 5+ years.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
You said, and I quoted,



I responded with their CEO getting fired:



You responded incomprehensibly whining about stock prices:



And I'm still wondering how a company that is 'immune' loses their CEO.
Click to expand...

Ah, my bad. I meant immune in the context of wall street
 
Nobu said:
Basically, they've been developing these different architectural nodes (12nm, 10nm, 7nm) in parallel, and had a set schedule to complete them, begin testing, ramp up, and volume. Well, 10nm isn't working out too well, and is way behind schedule. Their 7nm design is getting near completion. There is the option to just scrap 10nm (call it a loss) and redirect funds which were going to 10nm development toward 7nm. The smaller node would save them money compared to 10nm, and they may not have even used 10nm for long due to how far behind schedule it was. If 7nm was designed around different fab technology than 10nm (likely), then issues with manufacturing and yields may not be as prevalent.

That is all assuming Intel's 7nm is close to usable, and ignores probably many factors that they would want to consider, but that's the thought that goes behind that idea.
Click to expand...

Thanks for explaining.
The 7nm I cited that AMD had was a misunderstanding, seems that was a GPU.

But isn’t that kind of like prepping for your CPU?
Seems logical to develope something like a GPU before going all in?

Exciting stuff though.
Since Intel made record revenue in Q3 I won’t feel bad switching to AMD for my next build.
I’m still getting everything I need done on a Quad i7 as long as it’s above 3.4GHz.

The Zen2 will have a GPU and most likely a Quad at the bottom of their choices.
Last time I Used AMD was when the MPs were rolling right over Intels line up.

I sure love the competition.
But AMDs single core performance needs to be equal or better if they want real competition.

Thanks

Cheerz
 
jamesv said:
Thanks for explaining.
The 7nm I cited that AMD had was a misunderstanding, seems that was a GPU.

But isn’t that kind of like prepping for your CPU?
Seems logical to develope something like a GPU before going all in?

Exciting stuff though.
Since Intel made record revenue in Q3 I won’t feel bad switching to AMD for my next build.
I’m still getting everything I need done on a Quad i7 as long as it’s above 3.4GHz.

The Zen2 will have a GPU and most likely a Quad at the bottom of their choices.
Last time I Used AMD was when the MPs were rolling right over Intels line up.

I sure love the competition.
But AMDs single core performance needs to be equal or better if they want real competition.

Thanks

Cheerz
Click to expand...
Np. Note that I was just using those numbers as an example–I don't remember off hand what intel has coming after 10nm, and before 10nm intel had (has) 14nm(+++), not 12nm.
 
Nobu said:
Np. Note that I was just using those numbers as an example–I don't remember off hand what intel has coming after 10nm, and before 10nm intel had (has) 14nm(+++), not 12nm.
Click to expand...

Yes but your explanation of the process enlightened me.

Nice to have a place where I can learn without having to research.
Something that isn’t of major concern being explained succinctly saves me from reading 50 different lengthy explanations.

Cheerz
 
Galvin said:
If Intel can't do 10nm, how they going to do anything smaller?

So for now its only TSMC and Samsung that can do 7nm.
Click to expand...

jamesv said:
As the dumbest person in this thread I’m curious about something.
If you keep dropping the ball on 10nm, why is Intel acting like 7nm is some sort of relief?
Wouldn’t 7nm add more problems.

And how is it that AMD can have 7nm already.
Did they make Ryzen so different it can leapfrog over Intel?
Click to expand...

The 10nm node used by Intel on CannonLake chips has a density of 100.76 MTr/mm². The 7nm node used by Apple has a density of about 80 MTr/mm². The 7nm node used by AMD for Zen2 has a density of only 67 MTr/mm².

So the '7nm' node will be used for Zen2 is about 50% bigger than the 10nm node is used in CannonLake chips. That '7nm' node would be 12nm per Intel foundry standards.

Next year Icelake is expected to use a 10nm+ node with relaxed parameters compared to 10nm, to give higher performance. Using the 14/14+/14++ relationships, we can guess that 10nm+ could be about 91.6 MTr/mm².
 
Last edited:
cageymaru said:
Charlie Demerjian of Semiaccurate has dropped a bombshell article in which he reports that Intel insiders have proclaimed the current 10nm process is dead. He says that this is a good thing for the company as it was the right thing to do. Assuming that there is truth to this rumor, this means that only TSMC and Samsung are the gatekeepers of the next generation process. GLOBALFOUNDRIES has dropped out of the race. Samsung has begun production with their 7nm EUV process. TSMC announced that they expect their 7nm process to account for 20% of their revenue for 2019. There has been no official statement from Intel so far about the rumor.

For several years now SemiAccurate has been saying the the 10nm process as proposed by Intel would never be financially viable. Now we are hearing from trusted moles that the process is indeed dead and that is a good thing for Intel, if they had continued along their current path the disaster would have been untenable. Our moles are saying the deed has finally been done. This isn't to say the road to this point has been easy or straightforward, and the road ahead is even less solid.
Click to expand...

I did read elsewhere that AMD killed Kaveri, Steamroller, and Excavator:

https://semiaccurate.com/2012/11/19/amd-kills-off-big-cores-kaveri-steamroller-and-excavator/

It must be true. AMD denied the history, but I guess "SemiAccurate stands by its reporting."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top