3 ms·

That's not how the industry works. They have always multiple technologies in different stages of development. Intel failed one major technology node and it wi

That's not how the industry works. They have always multiple technologies in different stages of development. Intel failed one major technology node and it will hit their profits hard,but anyone who thinks that it has any effect to their 7nm node don't know how this works.

foota 6y ago
Just some lighthearted fun poking at Intel :) They were market leader long enough they can beat a few jokes I think. I do wonder though whether the fact Intel failed on 10nm means they're likely to fail on 7nm and below as a result of a failed culture? Certainly the technology looks very different for the next node (or so I assume) and maybe Intel just made a bad assumption/went down the wrong path that cost them many years for 10nm, but the fact they weren't able to insulate against the risk does seem somewhat worrying, right?
- Nokinside 6y ago
  Everybody must make some big chooses and commit to development path. Risks are huge. Intel chose not to use EUV and it was the wrong one. People forget that 2 out of 4 companies failed in this round. It was not just Intel. GF completely quit the race of high-end microprocessor nodes in the middle of development.
- dr_zoidberg 6y ago
  > maybe Intel just made a bad assumption/went down the wrong path that cost them many years for 10nm That's exactly what happened. They scaled it at over 2x density (I'm not expert, but apparently it was usual to aim between 30 and 40% increase), being confident that they had such a lead they could go for such an ambitious goal. That failed miserably. That is the "botched" 10nm node that never came to be. The current "10nm+"or "10nm++" process is a sensible fix over that, which should put them on par with TSMCs 7nm (actually slightly ahead, but it´s within 5%, see [0]). But having botched it in the first place made Intel take far longer, and TSMCs not only caught up, but surpassed them. And yes, Intels 7nm node is independent from that (though they say they've learned the lesson from 10nm and have taken safeguard measures should problems with a new node arise again). There's very little information around it, so can't tell much. But if it's on track, it should arrive close to TSMCs 5nm and be a contender to it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_nm_process#7_nm_process_nodes_and_process_offerings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_nm_process#7_nm_process_node...
- supernova87a 6y ago
  I'm totally unaware of the Intel-failed-at-10nm story -- is there somewhere good to read an intro to that?
  - foota 6y ago
    This talks about it some: https://www.extremetech.com/computing/295159-intel-acknowledges-its-long-10nm-delay-caused-by-being-too-aggressive https://www.extremetech.com/computing/295159-intel-acknowled.... I hadn't read it but this article seems to talk about it as well: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/technology/intel-culture-robert-swan.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/technology/intel-culture-....

foota 6y ago

Just some lighthearted fun poking at Intel :) They were market leader long enough they can beat a few jokes I think. I do wonder though whether the fact Intel failed on 10nm means they're likely to fail on 7nm and below as a result of a failed culture? Certainly the technology looks very different for the next node (or so I assume) and maybe Intel just made a bad assumption/went down the wrong path that cost them many years for 10nm, but the fact they weren't able to insulate against the risk does seem somewhat worrying, right?

Nokinside 6y ago
Everybody must make some big chooses and commit to development path. Risks are huge. Intel chose not to use EUV and it was the wrong one. People forget that 2 out of 4 companies failed in this round. It was not just Intel. GF completely quit the race of high-end microprocessor nodes in the middle of development.
dr_zoidberg 6y ago
> maybe Intel just made a bad assumption/went down the wrong path that cost them many years for 10nm That's exactly what happened. They scaled it at over 2x density (I'm not expert, but apparently it was usual to aim between 30 and 40% increase), being confident that they had such a lead they could go for such an ambitious goal. That failed miserably. That is the "botched" 10nm node that never came to be. The current "10nm+"or "10nm++" process is a sensible fix over that, which should put them on par with TSMCs 7nm (actually slightly ahead, but it´s within 5%, see [0]). But having botched it in the first place made Intel take far longer, and TSMCs not only caught up, but surpassed them. And yes, Intels 7nm node is independent from that (though they say they've learned the lesson from 10nm and have taken safeguard measures should problems with a new node arise again). There's very little information around it, so can't tell much. But if it's on track, it should arrive close to TSMCs 5nm and be a contender to it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_nm_process#7_nm_process_nodes_and_process_offerings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_nm_process#7_nm_process_node...
supernova87a 6y ago
I'm totally unaware of the Intel-failed-at-10nm story -- is there somewhere good to read an intro to that?
- foota 6y ago
  This talks about it some: https://www.extremetech.com/computing/295159-intel-acknowledges-its-long-10nm-delay-caused-by-being-too-aggressive https://www.extremetech.com/computing/295159-intel-acknowled.... I hadn't read it but this article seems to talk about it as well: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/technology/intel-culture-robert-swan.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/technology/intel-culture-....