11 ms·

Intel kills off the 10nm process?

kristianp 8y ago
Does this mean they'll skip to 7nm? I don't believe it.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  Process node-size names are more or less semantic marketing games these days anyways. What TSMC calls 7nm is roughly equivalent to what Intel called 10nm. Its likely that Intel will roll out a node at that size, but being forced to abandon their previous attempt is a crushing blow that has set them back years, and will likely set them back years more to come. It takes years to develop a node size, and they have had to throw out most of their work.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- warmwaffles 8y ago
  Pressure from AMD Ryzen is real. Exciting to see this happening again.
  - gambiting 8y ago
    Yeah, no kidding. The king of the kings, the 9900K, is only marginally faster than the 2700X in almost every benchmark, with the 2700X being a lot cheaper. If I was building a PC today I would pick AMD without any hesitation.
- tfha 8y ago
  Most likely it does. They've been taking about skipping 10nm altogether for over a year now.
- Qub3d 8y ago
  They've talked about skipping it since 2012: https://youtu.be/NGFhc8R_uO4?t=3072 https://youtu.be/NGFhc8R_uO4?t=3072
philipdestroyer 8y ago
Can someone who has access tell us what information the paywalled article is using to make this claim? EDIT: an r/hardware post is claiming the article is based on anonymous sources that the author knows at Intel. The article claims Intel is abandoning the 10nm roadmap --> no Icelake 10nm+? Intel also had some issues with 14nm which is why Broadwell-S and Broadwell came out at the same time. Whatever the case, Intel will probably have to respond to this.
bhouston 8y ago
Why couldn't Intel get this working with other fabs could? Hubris, lack of talent or really bad decisions?
- iamdead 8y ago
  From what I understand, Intel's 10nm process is roughly the same as 7nm processes from other foundries, and Intel's 14nm is more or less 10nm on someone else's scale.
  - maccio92 8y ago
    I see this argument presented over and over and over again but never any supporting information to prove that claim.
    - tux3 8y ago
      Oh I can help with that, the numbers — which may not be up to date, for obvious reasons — are easy to find: https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/7602-semicon-west-intel-10nm-gf-7nm-update.html https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/7602-semicon-west-int... Note that there isn't a single widely accepted way to say who has the better density, but this table sums up the various metrics pretty well.
      - opencl 8y ago
        Density is not really an important metric to end users though. What matters is power consumption and achievable clock speeds but these are very difficult to directly compare between processes unless someone has made the same design on both (as has happened with several phone SoCs dual sourcing from TSMC/Samsung).
        TomVDB 8y ago
        Density is important for the fab. Power consumption and clock speeds are something that can be tuned per design even for the same process.
lettergram 8y ago
I'm thinking this is not true. This is the core of Intel's business, I'd be shocked if they decided to kill it off. They may miss a deadline, maybe two - however if they want to survive as the behemoth they are today, they'll have to deliver.
- dmm 8y ago
  I think the idea is that they will eventually create something called 10nm but it will be very different from the current process in development.
- opencl 8y ago
  They've already missed at least two 10nm deadlines.
- tfha 8y ago
  Intel is still working on 7nm. That will be their next big play.
- mtgx 8y ago
  > They may miss a deadline, maybe two They've missed like at least 3 already. 10nm was supposed to be ready in the second half of 2015. Now their most optimistic schedule is late 2019.
- jaxtellerSoA 8y ago
  >They may miss a deadline, maybe two Too late for that, more like missing 5 deadlines at this point. 10nm at Intel is a disaster, I am not surprised they would scrap the whole thing.
bitL 8y ago
If this is true, then we will likely see MacBooks with 7nm A12+ in 2019 or 2020. They might surpass Intel on raw performance if TSMC's 7nm process is good (and Apple paid a lot of its R&D costs).
- make3 8y ago
  aren't the A series ARM chips? Windows has had quite a bit of difficulty getting regular desktop stuff to work on ARM (x86 emulation is slow)
  - jeffbax 8y ago
    Mac OS is not Windows :) Apple's never shied away from migrating platforms when they deem it useful, and having things running in a secret lab for years.
    - Slartie 8y ago
      Last time they migrated from a niche instruction set to the dominant instruction set in the PC and server space however. That is not comparable to a migration from the dominant instruction set to a niche instruction set, which a migration from x86 to ARM would be in the current computing landscape. Last time, the Mac platform basically existed in isolation, thus the only problem was that apps for this platform had to be recompiled. This time, the Mac is no longer isolated - millions of developers write client- and server-side applications on Macs that are to be run on mostly x86-based servers, and their toolchain implicitly relies on the architecture being the same on dev and prod machines. That is not to say that it's impossible to change the architecture of the dev machines to something else - it's just a huge additional drawback that was not to be considered at all back then in the PowerPC->x86 transition. These two facts tend to get downplayed or overlooked pretty frequently when it comes to the "ARM-based MacBooks" discussion, but I consider them fairly substantial and they dampen my enthusiasm for such a transition quite a lot.
      - rpeden 8y ago
        ARM wouldn't be a niche instruction set in the current computing landscape. It might even be the dominant one, if we consider how many people are carrying around multi gHz ARM computers in their pocket every day.
HelloNurse 8y ago
The most interesting question is whether the dead Intel process node should be blamed on bad choices (e.g. deferring adoption of EUV lithography) or on incompetence, and also on shortsighted financial management or on optimistic/clueless technical leadership: we can live without Cannon Lake CPUs, but where will Intel be in 5 years?
- dgacmu 8y ago
  TSMC 7FF isn't based on EUV either, and their 7+ is only going to use it on 4 "non-critical layers" (i.e., they're still testing it out). The best speculation I've seen is this: https://wccftech.com/analysis-about-intels-10nm-process/ https://wccftech.com/analysis-about-intels-10nm-process/ > Our sources tell us it had to do primarily with Intel overextending too early. SAQP or Self Aligning Quad Patterning is the technique the company used to make its 10nm process and it was the first in the industry to attempt to do so.
  - gok 8y ago
    Isn't GF's 7nm process also dead? [edit: corrected now]
    - dgacmu 8y ago
      Argh, thanks, I keep typing GF when I mean TSMC. I haven't had enough coffee. Edited my post to correct.
  - akritrime 8y ago
    Afaik, only Samsung has figured out EUV for mass production?
- enimodas 8y ago
  I found this /g/ post of a while ago interesting: https://pastebin.com/TbtYmtyB https://pastebin.com/TbtYmtyB
neverminder 8y ago
So is this legit? Mods have been killing this story with "NSFB" flag on /r/intel almost as fast as Intel killed 10nm for the past few hours. Not safe for who's business exactly in this case?
dracodoc 8y ago
Read with this Oct.18 news together: Intel Split Technology and Manufacturing Into 3 Divisions https://www.game-debate.com/news/25940/intel-split-technology-and-manufacturing-into-3-divisions-amid-crisis-in-manufacturing https://www.game-debate.com/news/25940/intel-split-technolog... As of this week, Intel has announced it’s splitting its manufacturing group into three distinct segments in a massive shake-up aimed at bolstering its development. The move is tied into the departure of long-time senior VP Sohail Ahmed, who’s been with Intel for 34 years and is currently the head of technology and manufacturing at Intel. Ahmed will be moving on shortly, and Intel will be using this moment to restructure its business.
- y-c-o-m-b 8y ago
  I dreaded these types of restructurings when I was at Intel. It was interesting watching morale plummet while on the surface everyone was optimistic and in denial about the state of the business regressing. Deep down though people just couldn't shake the feeling that large layoffs were on the horizon and sure enough they came.
  - pertymcpert 8y ago
    When were you there?
individualcell 8y ago
That begs a question why something so important as CPU development has been left to a private company? Wouldn't be better to nationalise Intel and make sure it develops CPU that can serve the people and help advance the society? Corporate interests are not always good for the humanity and I think it is time for a state to step in. Intel has been having free reign for too long.
- dgacmu 8y ago
  Your post reads like trolling, but if you're actually interested in the real history of this, semiconductor manufacturing has been a joint industry/govt. thing for almost its entire lifetime. As one starting point, read about SEMATECH: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEMATECH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEMATECH DARPA has long played a huge role in furthering US semiconductor capabilities.
  - individualcell 8y ago
    Look, we have state police, army and then see how disastrous private healthcare turned out to be. Maybe DARPA should step up their game then, as instead of nationalising the Intel they could nationalise their IP and work on affordable and _fast_ CPU for the people as Intel fails to deliver. We are yet to see a private company landing human on the moon. Imagine what CPU we could have today if state really took over.
    - dgacmu 8y ago
      I'm not trying to argue with you, because you still sound like you're trolling. I'm providing some information about this topic for others so they have a better grounding for reasoning about the issue. Semiconductors are one of the most interesting grounds for discussing the role of private industry and the state in advancing the state of the art in technology. See, for example: http://mitsloan.mit.edu/shared/ods/documents/?DocumentID=4615 http://mitsloan.mit.edu/shared/ods/documents/?DocumentID=461... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41928-017-0005-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41928-017-0005-9 and https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1545155 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1545155 [Full disclosure, I'm married to one of the authors.]
fermienrico 8y ago
I don't see any sources to the SemiAccurate's article. Also, they tend to be heavily biased and callous with regards to Intel.
- rurban 8y ago
  He called them internal "moles" from within Intel.
eksu 8y ago
@intelnews https://twitter.com/intelnews/status/1054397715071651841 https://twitter.com/intelnews/status/1054397715071651841 “Media reports published today that Intel is ending work on the 10nm process are untrue. We are making good progress on 10nm. Yields are improving consistent with the timeline we shared during our last earnings report.”
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jamiek88 8y ago
  Charlie at semimaccurate has many, many items broken uncomfortable news about intel and others that has later been proven fully rather than ‘semi accurate’. I know for me he has earned trust so to see this official denial has left me conflicted.
  - dragontamer 8y ago
    Unfortunately... the full details are likely behind the paywall. Charlie is usually "fully correct" behind a paywall, but the "teasers" are less accurate and may have a bit of hype or hypotheticals in them. Which is fine: I realize he writes like that so that he can get paid. But still, it means you have to take the rumors he hands out "for free" with a grain of salt. Chances are: "10nm is cancelled" is closer to "some version of 10nm has been cancelled: Intel may be making progress on EUV or some other technology which they will THEN call 10nm in the future." But those details are what matters with regards to Intel's Ice Lake release plans, as well as AMD's plan for Zen2 / EPYC Rome in the upcoming years.
    - phyller 8y ago
      Intel can call a tweaked 14nm "10nm" and probably will. Those designations are just marketing now. The real issues are: Will there be an even greater delay before a significant process improvement, including higher density, lower power consumption, and higher clocks? (Greater than single digit percentage point tweaks) Were billions of dollars of investment largely wasted? Will it require even more investment to get the next node out? By the way, even if it means more delays and more money, it could still be an improvement for Intel if their previous path wasn't working well. But they would be motivated to hide it anyway because they would have hidden all the wasted time and money up to this point and wouldn't want to have to own all that.
purplezooey 8y ago
I don't like the choice of the word "knifing". British English or something?

Does this mean they'll skip to 7nm? I don't believe it.

throwaway2048 8y ago
Process node-size names are more or less semantic marketing games these days anyways. What TSMC calls 7nm is roughly equivalent to what Intel called 10nm. Its likely that Intel will roll out a node at that size, but being forced to abandon their previous attempt is a crushing blow that has set them back years, and will likely set them back years more to come. It takes years to develop a node size, and they have had to throw out most of their work.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
warmwaffles 8y ago
Pressure from AMD Ryzen is real. Exciting to see this happening again.
- gambiting 8y ago
  Yeah, no kidding. The king of the kings, the 9900K, is only marginally faster than the 2700X in almost every benchmark, with the 2700X being a lot cheaper. If I was building a PC today I would pick AMD without any hesitation.
tfha 8y ago
Most likely it does. They've been taking about skipping 10nm altogether for over a year now.
Qub3d 8y ago
They've talked about skipping it since 2012: https://youtu.be/NGFhc8R_uO4?t=3072 https://youtu.be/NGFhc8R_uO4?t=3072

Can someone who has access tell us what information the paywalled article is using to make this claim? EDIT: an r/hardware post is claiming the article is based on anonymous sources that the author knows at Intel. The article claims Intel is abandoning the 10nm roadmap --> no Icelake 10nm+? Intel also had some issues with 14nm which is why Broadwell-S and Broadwell came out at the same time. Whatever the case, Intel will probably have to respond to this.

bhouston 8y ago

Why couldn't Intel get this working with other fabs could? Hubris, lack of talent or really bad decisions?

iamdead 8y ago
From what I understand, Intel's 10nm process is roughly the same as 7nm processes from other foundries, and Intel's 14nm is more or less 10nm on someone else's scale.
- maccio92 8y ago
  I see this argument presented over and over and over again but never any supporting information to prove that claim.
  - tux3 8y ago
    Oh I can help with that, the numbers — which may not be up to date, for obvious reasons — are easy to find: https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/7602-semicon-west-intel-10nm-gf-7nm-update.html https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/7602-semicon-west-int... Note that there isn't a single widely accepted way to say who has the better density, but this table sums up the various metrics pretty well.
    - opencl 8y ago
      Density is not really an important metric to end users though. What matters is power consumption and achievable clock speeds but these are very difficult to directly compare between processes unless someone has made the same design on both (as has happened with several phone SoCs dual sourcing from TSMC/Samsung).
      - TomVDB 8y ago
        Density is important for the fab. Power consumption and clock speeds are something that can be tuned per design even for the same process.

lettergram 8y ago

I'm thinking this is not true. This is the core of Intel's business, I'd be shocked if they decided to kill it off. They may miss a deadline, maybe two - however if they want to survive as the behemoth they are today, they'll have to deliver.

dmm 8y ago
I think the idea is that they will eventually create something called 10nm but it will be very different from the current process in development.
opencl 8y ago
They've already missed at least two 10nm deadlines.
tfha 8y ago
Intel is still working on 7nm. That will be their next big play.
mtgx 8y ago
> They may miss a deadline, maybe two They've missed like at least 3 already. 10nm was supposed to be ready in the second half of 2015. Now their most optimistic schedule is late 2019.
jaxtellerSoA 8y ago
>They may miss a deadline, maybe two Too late for that, more like missing 5 deadlines at this point. 10nm at Intel is a disaster, I am not surprised they would scrap the whole thing.

bitL 8y ago

If this is true, then we will likely see MacBooks with 7nm A12+ in 2019 or 2020. They might surpass Intel on raw performance if TSMC's 7nm process is good (and Apple paid a lot of its R&D costs).

make3 8y ago
aren't the A series ARM chips? Windows has had quite a bit of difficulty getting regular desktop stuff to work on ARM (x86 emulation is slow)
- jeffbax 8y ago
  Mac OS is not Windows :) Apple's never shied away from migrating platforms when they deem it useful, and having things running in a secret lab for years.
  - Slartie 8y ago
    Last time they migrated from a niche instruction set to the dominant instruction set in the PC and server space however. That is not comparable to a migration from the dominant instruction set to a niche instruction set, which a migration from x86 to ARM would be in the current computing landscape. Last time, the Mac platform basically existed in isolation, thus the only problem was that apps for this platform had to be recompiled. This time, the Mac is no longer isolated - millions of developers write client- and server-side applications on Macs that are to be run on mostly x86-based servers, and their toolchain implicitly relies on the architecture being the same on dev and prod machines. That is not to say that it's impossible to change the architecture of the dev machines to something else - it's just a huge additional drawback that was not to be considered at all back then in the PowerPC->x86 transition. These two facts tend to get downplayed or overlooked pretty frequently when it comes to the "ARM-based MacBooks" discussion, but I consider them fairly substantial and they dampen my enthusiasm for such a transition quite a lot.
    - rpeden 8y ago
      ARM wouldn't be a niche instruction set in the current computing landscape. It might even be the dominant one, if we consider how many people are carrying around multi gHz ARM computers in their pocket every day.

HelloNurse 8y ago

The most interesting question is whether the dead Intel process node should be blamed on bad choices (e.g. deferring adoption of EUV lithography) or on incompetence, and also on shortsighted financial management or on optimistic/clueless technical leadership: we can live without Cannon Lake CPUs, but where will Intel be in 5 years?

dgacmu 8y ago
TSMC 7FF isn't based on EUV either, and their 7+ is only going to use it on 4 "non-critical layers" (i.e., they're still testing it out). The best speculation I've seen is this: https://wccftech.com/analysis-about-intels-10nm-process/ https://wccftech.com/analysis-about-intels-10nm-process/ > Our sources tell us it had to do primarily with Intel overextending too early. SAQP or Self Aligning Quad Patterning is the technique the company used to make its 10nm process and it was the first in the industry to attempt to do so.
- gok 8y ago
  Isn't GF's 7nm process also dead? [edit: corrected now]
  - dgacmu 8y ago
    Argh, thanks, I keep typing GF when I mean TSMC. I haven't had enough coffee. Edited my post to correct.
- akritrime 8y ago
  Afaik, only Samsung has figured out EUV for mass production?
enimodas 8y ago
I found this /g/ post of a while ago interesting: https://pastebin.com/TbtYmtyB https://pastebin.com/TbtYmtyB

neverminder 8y ago

So is this legit? Mods have been killing this story with "NSFB" flag on /r/intel almost as fast as Intel killed 10nm for the past few hours. Not safe for who's business exactly in this case?

dracodoc 8y ago

Read with this Oct.18 news together: Intel Split Technology and Manufacturing Into 3 Divisions https://www.game-debate.com/news/25940/intel-split-technology-and-manufacturing-into-3-divisions-amid-crisis-in-manufacturing https://www.game-debate.com/news/25940/intel-split-technolog... As of this week, Intel has announced it’s splitting its manufacturing group into three distinct segments in a massive shake-up aimed at bolstering its development. The move is tied into the departure of long-time senior VP Sohail Ahmed, who’s been with Intel for 34 years and is currently the head of technology and manufacturing at Intel. Ahmed will be moving on shortly, and Intel will be using this moment to restructure its business.

y-c-o-m-b 8y ago
I dreaded these types of restructurings when I was at Intel. It was interesting watching morale plummet while on the surface everyone was optimistic and in denial about the state of the business regressing. Deep down though people just couldn't shake the feeling that large layoffs were on the horizon and sure enough they came.
- pertymcpert 8y ago
  When were you there?

individualcell 8y ago

That begs a question why something so important as CPU development has been left to a private company? Wouldn't be better to nationalise Intel and make sure it develops CPU that can serve the people and help advance the society? Corporate interests are not always good for the humanity and I think it is time for a state to step in. Intel has been having free reign for too long.

dgacmu 8y ago
Your post reads like trolling, but if you're actually interested in the real history of this, semiconductor manufacturing has been a joint industry/govt. thing for almost its entire lifetime. As one starting point, read about SEMATECH: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEMATECH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEMATECH DARPA has long played a huge role in furthering US semiconductor capabilities.
- individualcell 8y ago
  Look, we have state police, army and then see how disastrous private healthcare turned out to be. Maybe DARPA should step up their game then, as instead of nationalising the Intel they could nationalise their IP and work on affordable and _fast_ CPU for the people as Intel fails to deliver. We are yet to see a private company landing human on the moon. Imagine what CPU we could have today if state really took over.
  - dgacmu 8y ago
    I'm not trying to argue with you, because you still sound like you're trolling. I'm providing some information about this topic for others so they have a better grounding for reasoning about the issue. Semiconductors are one of the most interesting grounds for discussing the role of private industry and the state in advancing the state of the art in technology. See, for example: http://mitsloan.mit.edu/shared/ods/documents/?DocumentID=4615 http://mitsloan.mit.edu/shared/ods/documents/?DocumentID=461... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41928-017-0005-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41928-017-0005-9 and https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1545155 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1545155 [Full disclosure, I'm married to one of the authors.]

fermienrico 8y ago

I don't see any sources to the SemiAccurate's article. Also, they tend to be heavily biased and callous with regards to Intel.

rurban 8y ago
He called them internal "moles" from within Intel.

eksu 8y ago

@intelnews https://twitter.com/intelnews/status/1054397715071651841 https://twitter.com/intelnews/status/1054397715071651841 “Media reports published today that Intel is ending work on the 10nm process are untrue. We are making good progress on 10nm. Yields are improving consistent with the timeline we shared during our last earnings report.”

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jamiek88 8y ago
Charlie at semimaccurate has many, many items broken uncomfortable news about intel and others that has later been proven fully rather than ‘semi accurate’. I know for me he has earned trust so to see this official denial has left me conflicted.
- dragontamer 8y ago
  Unfortunately... the full details are likely behind the paywall. Charlie is usually "fully correct" behind a paywall, but the "teasers" are less accurate and may have a bit of hype or hypotheticals in them. Which is fine: I realize he writes like that so that he can get paid. But still, it means you have to take the rumors he hands out "for free" with a grain of salt. Chances are: "10nm is cancelled" is closer to "some version of 10nm has been cancelled: Intel may be making progress on EUV or some other technology which they will THEN call 10nm in the future." But those details are what matters with regards to Intel's Ice Lake release plans, as well as AMD's plan for Zen2 / EPYC Rome in the upcoming years.
  - phyller 8y ago
    Intel can call a tweaked 14nm "10nm" and probably will. Those designations are just marketing now. The real issues are: Will there be an even greater delay before a significant process improvement, including higher density, lower power consumption, and higher clocks? (Greater than single digit percentage point tweaks) Were billions of dollars of investment largely wasted? Will it require even more investment to get the next node out? By the way, even if it means more delays and more money, it could still be an improvement for Intel if their previous path wasn't working well. But they would be motivated to hide it anyway because they would have hidden all the wasted time and money up to this point and wouldn't want to have to own all that.

purplezooey 8y ago

I don't like the choice of the word "knifing". British English or something?