3 ms·

Intel has been the undisputed champion of process since the 80486 days so it's surprising to see how badly they're scrambling to hit even 10nm, let alone 7nm.

Intel has been the undisputed champion of process since the 80486 days so it's surprising to see how badly they're scrambling to hit even 10nm, let alone 7nm. I would never have bet money that the tiny little CPU designed by Acorn Computers that ended up powering the Newton would be the first CPU to jump two nodes ahead of Intel in terms of process, but here we are. ARM's doing great work and I hope they continue to push core counts to even more ridiculous levels.

slivym 8y ago
It's 'let alone'
- astrodust 8y ago
  Fixed?
innocenat 8y ago
You know that Intel 10 is roughly the same, if not better than TSMC 7, right?
- astrodust 8y ago
  When Intel ships a consumer part at 10nm we'll talk. Until then TSMC is ahead because they're shipping. The current generation i9 processors are all 14nm.
matthewmacleod 8y ago
(I think you've confused ARM and AMD, FWIW!) it's surprising to see how badly they're scrambling to hit even 10nm, little lone 7nm The feature size there is a bit misleading – "Intel 10nm" and "TSMC 7nm" are roughly equivalent, with IIRC the Intel 10nm process actually having a higher transistor density. The TSMC chips aren't really "two nodes ahead" – but it is likely that Intel will lose its process lead for maybe a year or so. I get the impression that Intel overextended on their 10nm process, in that they were perhaps a bit more ambitious that other manufacturers and it came back to bite them when there were scaling problems. On the other hand, last I heard was that the scaling problems experienced with the 10nm node haven't held up Intel's 7nm node, which could well see them re-establish their process lead. At the end of the day, it's great that the market is seeing some more competition, so hopefully we will all be able to enjoy the benefits from a variety of manufacturers soon!
- astrodust 8y ago
  I don't doubt that Intel will get it together and remain competitive but right now they're really in a bad place. They're usually a step or two ahead, even when pushing ridiculous designs with no merit at all like the Pentium 4 or Itanium. To see them scrambling now to catch up is pretty much unprecedented.
- nicoburns 8y ago
  > I think you've confused ARM and AMD, FWIW! Quite possibly they are, but to be fair ARM processors were the first to launch on 7nm.
  - astrodust 8y ago
    I'm talking about how ARM got their first on the process and now AMD has a chance to fab using that as well. AMD got out of the fabrication game, they couldn't keep up, which means they can use specialists like TSMC which are killing it now. Intel's largely "secret sauce" process has been their greatest asset. Now it looks like a huge liability.
- blackstrips 8y ago
  > I get the impression that Intel overextended on their 10nm process, in that they were perhaps a bit more ambitious that other manufacturers and it came back to bite them when there were scaling problems. I’m no micro-electronic expert but I wonder if we are hitting limits in clock speed scaling with regards to feature size - i.e. shrinking pass a certain feature size clock speeds actually have to drop for the chip to be stable. Intel’s priority is clock speed first and foremost due to what they produce - desktop and server CPUs. A new process is pointless for them if they can’t get at least equal clock speeds out of it as their old process. TSMC caters to mobile CPU and GPU production - those will never boost to 5Ghz like CPUs; the former for power efficiency reasons (and heat) and the later tends to go for more “cores” as it focuses on parallizable workloads.
  - da_chicken 8y ago
    As I understand it, it's not chip speed. It's chip voltage. Everything is a conductor if the voltage is high enough, and the closer the traces get, the less resistance the insulation provides. The problem is that at the temperatures we run computers at, the conductor traces need a fair bit of voltage to push the current through the entire chip.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

slivym 8y ago

It's 'let alone'

astrodust 8y ago
Fixed?

innocenat 8y ago

You know that Intel 10 is roughly the same, if not better than TSMC 7, right?

astrodust 8y ago
When Intel ships a consumer part at 10nm we'll talk. Until then TSMC is ahead because they're shipping. The current generation i9 processors are all 14nm.

matthewmacleod 8y ago

(I think you've confused ARM and AMD, FWIW!) it's surprising to see how badly they're scrambling to hit even 10nm, little lone 7nm The feature size there is a bit misleading – "Intel 10nm" and "TSMC 7nm" are roughly equivalent, with IIRC the Intel 10nm process actually having a higher transistor density. The TSMC chips aren't really "two nodes ahead" – but it is likely that Intel will lose its process lead for maybe a year or so. I get the impression that Intel overextended on their 10nm process, in that they were perhaps a bit more ambitious that other manufacturers and it came back to bite them when there were scaling problems. On the other hand, last I heard was that the scaling problems experienced with the 10nm node haven't held up Intel's 7nm node, which could well see them re-establish their process lead. At the end of the day, it's great that the market is seeing some more competition, so hopefully we will all be able to enjoy the benefits from a variety of manufacturers soon!

astrodust 8y ago
I don't doubt that Intel will get it together and remain competitive but right now they're really in a bad place. They're usually a step or two ahead, even when pushing ridiculous designs with no merit at all like the Pentium 4 or Itanium. To see them scrambling now to catch up is pretty much unprecedented.
nicoburns 8y ago
> I think you've confused ARM and AMD, FWIW! Quite possibly they are, but to be fair ARM processors were the first to launch on 7nm.
- astrodust 8y ago
  I'm talking about how ARM got their first on the process and now AMD has a chance to fab using that as well. AMD got out of the fabrication game, they couldn't keep up, which means they can use specialists like TSMC which are killing it now. Intel's largely "secret sauce" process has been their greatest asset. Now it looks like a huge liability.
blackstrips 8y ago
> I get the impression that Intel overextended on their 10nm process, in that they were perhaps a bit more ambitious that other manufacturers and it came back to bite them when there were scaling problems. I’m no micro-electronic expert but I wonder if we are hitting limits in clock speed scaling with regards to feature size - i.e. shrinking pass a certain feature size clock speeds actually have to drop for the chip to be stable. Intel’s priority is clock speed first and foremost due to what they produce - desktop and server CPUs. A new process is pointless for them if they can’t get at least equal clock speeds out of it as their old process. TSMC caters to mobile CPU and GPU production - those will never boost to 5Ghz like CPUs; the former for power efficiency reasons (and heat) and the later tends to go for more “cores” as it focuses on parallizable workloads.
- da_chicken 8y ago
  As I understand it, it's not chip speed. It's chip voltage. Everything is a conductor if the voltage is high enough, and the closer the traces get, the less resistance the insulation provides. The problem is that at the temperatures we run computers at, the conductor traces need a fair bit of voltage to push the current through the entire chip.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]