6 ms·

Great keynote and clearly it's a massive improvement to have a former silicon veteran at the helm again at Intel. For all the major announcements made, I think

Great keynote and clearly it's a massive improvement to have a former silicon veteran at the helm again at Intel. For all the major announcements made, I think looking at them in context of the industry and other competitors reveals some interesting nuances: 1. This is Intel's proverbial hailmary rather than "unleashed". The industry is moving on from x86 and with its other bets (e.g. radio modem, mobileeye) not paid/paying off, the revenue will quickly nosedive within the next few years. 2. IDM 2.0 is an involuntary move due to Intel's loss of both performance leadership (to AMD/ARM) and fabrication node leadership (to TSMC). Clearly their factories are becoming liabilities and opening up to outside business cushions the freefall. 3. 2023 is a long time away in the silicon industry. As pointed out in Stratechery, 7nm is actually further delayed than what Bob Swan previously announced. Apple is rumored to be on TSMC 3nm this year and AMD will likely move down to 5nm by next year. Unless Meteor Lake is a massive performance uplift, then it may not change the overall trajectory. Intel's saving grace at this point is the capacity constraints at both TSMC and Samsung.

MangoCoffee 6y ago
>7nm is actually further delayed than what Bob Swan previously announced Intel can't even solve their 10nm yield problem. Its great to have another foundry but Intel needs to step up.
- colinmhayes 6y ago
  Sounds like Intel has solved 10nm and is confident it'll release on desktop this year.
  - chao- 6y ago
    EDIT: I am incorrect, and was mis-remembering something I had read, in a completely backwards manner! PREVIOUS (incorrect): You can buy them (the "Rocket Lake S" platform) beginning March 30th, I believe. One issue they are having with 10nm (though not intently a fatal one) is that it doesn't seem to achieve market-leading single-thread performance without being ridiculously power-inefficient. In lower-power environments, e.g. in laptops, the 10nm chips seem to be "fine", in that they are improvements over 14nm+++. They're still not market-leading, but they are an improvement and not at the cost of power (relative to previous generation).
    - pointyfence 6y ago
      Rocket lake is 14nm
      - chao- 6y ago
        You are right, and I stand corrected. I was completely mis-remembering something I read, analyzing the reasons behind expectations of Rocket Lake power consumption.
cjblomqvist 6y ago
3. It should be noted though that Intels 7nm will most likely be close to TSMCs 5nm. Regardless they're obviously lagging behind.
- readams 6y ago
  They should also announce a switch to the more fantastical nm sizes as well in their next node.
  - MR4D 6y ago
    Looks like you got downvoted for this, but honestly, I wonder how much INTC gets dinged in the stock market because of this. No idea how to measure the impact, but I'm sure it's in the tens of billions. It doesn't even matter if it's right or wrong - it matters because the headline of 7nm vs 5nm sucks for INTC stock. I think Intel could easily put some marketing language about shifting to an "industry standard measurement practice" or something similar (remember, it's not for techies, but the people who buy INTC stock).
    - systemvoltage 6y ago
      Investors know this.
      - MR4D 6y ago
        Some investors do. If everyone did, then things like GME would never happen.
  - gumby 6y ago
    While I agree 100%, I feel compelled to point out that it was Intel who for years embraced and encouraged the bullshit use of clock speed as the metric of performance. Entirely precise yet only partially meaningful, which is just as true of the chase for node bragging rights. So there's some karmic justice in Intel being pilloried for being behind in this way.
ksec 6y ago
>Apple is rumored to be on TSMC 3nm this year Not sure where that rumour are from. But TSMC 3nm is next year. If Gelsinger didn't lie, and the original 7nm schedule and spec were unchanged, the 100% increase in EUV usage would actually put it close to if not on par with TSMC 3nm. Although they will still be a year and a half behind TSMC. And technically 7nm are taping out this year. The only reason why volume product wont come until 2023 is because Intel has a SuperComputer contract to fill with the US DOE. Both Intel 5nm and TSMC 2nm will transition to GAAFET. But I guess Intel ( Pat ) want us to focus on the strategic changes rather than the detail of future roadmap.
- paulpan 6y ago
  Agreed, TSMC 3nm is slated for full-production next year (2022) but risk production is end of this year. https://www.anandtech.com/show/16024/tsmc-details-3nm-process-technology-details-full-node-scaling-for-2h22 https://www.anandtech.com/show/16024/tsmc-details-3nm-proces... It depends on how Apple maneuvers. Mobile chips (A15) are high volume so very unlikely to get moved but it's certainly possible for the lower-volume Mac products, e.g. M2/M1X for Macbook/iMac, to switch onto leading-node 3nm if yields are good. Apple is certainly incentivized as it'd allow them to continue the narrative that their own SOCs are superior to anything else on the market.
  - bredren 6y ago
    >Apple is certainly incentivized as it'd allow them to continue the narrative that their own SOCs are superior to anything else on the market. Hasn't this narrative been largely shaped around performance impact on customer experiences? Recall the announcement video which was decried as "marketing hype" by some tech voices prior to release. If so, M2/M1X should be able to continue this narrative on a performance basis alone regardless of whether they make the jump to 3nm.
    - sagarm 6y ago
      Apple M1 is on TSMC 5nm; Ryzen 3 is on TSMC 7nm and Intel is famously still on an (advanced) 14nm process. A big chunk of Apple's power advantage (which can translate to better perf as well, since the key limits are thermal) can be attributed to the process node, though we won't know how much for sure until we get an apples to apples comparison. I agree with Gap, retaining the process node advantage will help sustain and entrench the perception that Apple's chips are better, easing the transition.
totalZero 6y ago
> mobileeye) not paid/paying off Uh, what? Mobileye bagged $333mm in revenue last quarter. See for yourself: https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/_9ea32bedbda3919ea6d9a155be24f84b/intel/news/2021-01-21_Intel_Reports_Fourth_Quarter_and_Full_Year_2020_1439.pdf https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/_9ea32bedbda3919ea6d9a1...
- BeetleB 6y ago
  And Intel paid $15B for it. It's not paid off yet.
_carbyau_ 6y ago
This just seems like Intel's version of Amazon's AWS. "Hey we have a world class [whatever] over here. Wonder if we can sell it to the world as well as using it for our business?"
- Decker87 6y ago
  Doesn't Amazon not use AWS for its main business?
  - _carbyau_ 6y ago
    Yes it does. But Amazon built it for it's own use as well, to run the amazon website and systems. They had an initial datacentre but then built AWS with the idea to serve themselves and also sell hosting to the world. Which is what Intels move looks like to me. Go hard on Fabs, and sell production to others as well.
015a 6y ago
I question whether the move away from x86 is actually that much of a problem for Intel; ultimately, its just an instruction architecture, and at the end of the day the fabrication capacity is far more valuable than some old & busted IP. There's no reason to believe Intel couldn't adapt to an ARM-based future; they would just need the leadership to step in and make that investment. They haven't made it thus far, but I also legitimately believe its a fair decision not to; its not obvious to me, just some guy with nothing to lose, that my next server, or gaming desktop, or laptop, will or should run an ARM chip. Windows hasn't moved that way, not more than the nanometer Surface Pro X moved it, Linux hasn't outside of Android, really the only company that has said "yeah we're all in on ARM" is Apple. Well, they have their sandbox they play in, and it certainly influences the rest of the industry, but ultimately it is separate.
- als0 6y ago
  There’s a rumour that AMD are making an ARM chip for OEMs that want to compete with Apple.
  - Aperocky 6y ago
    At what point does a chip stop being ARM and become AMD? Cortex series are pretty potent for commodity chips. Now Apple does have their completely different cores that just happen to use ARM instruction set, but I think most fabless are not focused on the cores themselves.
    - als0 6y ago
      > At what point does a chip stop being ARM and become AMD? I should have said arm64 chip. AMD is fabless and they do spend a lot of effort on core design.

MangoCoffee 6y ago

>7nm is actually further delayed than what Bob Swan previously announced Intel can't even solve their 10nm yield problem. Its great to have another foundry but Intel needs to step up.

colinmhayes 6y ago
Sounds like Intel has solved 10nm and is confident it'll release on desktop this year.
- chao- 6y ago
  EDIT: I am incorrect, and was mis-remembering something I had read, in a completely backwards manner! PREVIOUS (incorrect): You can buy them (the "Rocket Lake S" platform) beginning March 30th, I believe. One issue they are having with 10nm (though not intently a fatal one) is that it doesn't seem to achieve market-leading single-thread performance without being ridiculously power-inefficient. In lower-power environments, e.g. in laptops, the 10nm chips seem to be "fine", in that they are improvements over 14nm+++. They're still not market-leading, but they are an improvement and not at the cost of power (relative to previous generation).
  - pointyfence 6y ago
    Rocket lake is 14nm
    - chao- 6y ago
      You are right, and I stand corrected. I was completely mis-remembering something I read, analyzing the reasons behind expectations of Rocket Lake power consumption.

cjblomqvist 6y ago

3. It should be noted though that Intels 7nm will most likely be close to TSMCs 5nm. Regardless they're obviously lagging behind.

readams 6y ago
They should also announce a switch to the more fantastical nm sizes as well in their next node.
- MR4D 6y ago
  Looks like you got downvoted for this, but honestly, I wonder how much INTC gets dinged in the stock market because of this. No idea how to measure the impact, but I'm sure it's in the tens of billions. It doesn't even matter if it's right or wrong - it matters because the headline of 7nm vs 5nm sucks for INTC stock. I think Intel could easily put some marketing language about shifting to an "industry standard measurement practice" or something similar (remember, it's not for techies, but the people who buy INTC stock).
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    Investors know this.
    - MR4D 6y ago
      Some investors do. If everyone did, then things like GME would never happen.
- gumby 6y ago
  While I agree 100%, I feel compelled to point out that it was Intel who for years embraced and encouraged the bullshit use of clock speed as the metric of performance. Entirely precise yet only partially meaningful, which is just as true of the chase for node bragging rights. So there's some karmic justice in Intel being pilloried for being behind in this way.

ksec 6y ago

>Apple is rumored to be on TSMC 3nm this year Not sure where that rumour are from. But TSMC 3nm is next year. If Gelsinger didn't lie, and the original 7nm schedule and spec were unchanged, the 100% increase in EUV usage would actually put it close to if not on par with TSMC 3nm. Although they will still be a year and a half behind TSMC. And technically 7nm are taping out this year. The only reason why volume product wont come until 2023 is because Intel has a SuperComputer contract to fill with the US DOE. Both Intel 5nm and TSMC 2nm will transition to GAAFET. But I guess Intel ( Pat ) want us to focus on the strategic changes rather than the detail of future roadmap.

paulpan 6y ago
Agreed, TSMC 3nm is slated for full-production next year (2022) but risk production is end of this year. https://www.anandtech.com/show/16024/tsmc-details-3nm-process-technology-details-full-node-scaling-for-2h22 https://www.anandtech.com/show/16024/tsmc-details-3nm-proces... It depends on how Apple maneuvers. Mobile chips (A15) are high volume so very unlikely to get moved but it's certainly possible for the lower-volume Mac products, e.g. M2/M1X for Macbook/iMac, to switch onto leading-node 3nm if yields are good. Apple is certainly incentivized as it'd allow them to continue the narrative that their own SOCs are superior to anything else on the market.
- bredren 6y ago
  >Apple is certainly incentivized as it'd allow them to continue the narrative that their own SOCs are superior to anything else on the market. Hasn't this narrative been largely shaped around performance impact on customer experiences? Recall the announcement video which was decried as "marketing hype" by some tech voices prior to release. If so, M2/M1X should be able to continue this narrative on a performance basis alone regardless of whether they make the jump to 3nm.
  - sagarm 6y ago
    Apple M1 is on TSMC 5nm; Ryzen 3 is on TSMC 7nm and Intel is famously still on an (advanced) 14nm process. A big chunk of Apple's power advantage (which can translate to better perf as well, since the key limits are thermal) can be attributed to the process node, though we won't know how much for sure until we get an apples to apples comparison. I agree with Gap, retaining the process node advantage will help sustain and entrench the perception that Apple's chips are better, easing the transition.

totalZero 6y ago

> mobileeye) not paid/paying off Uh, what? Mobileye bagged $333mm in revenue last quarter. See for yourself: https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/_9ea32bedbda3919ea6d9a155be24f84b/intel/news/2021-01-21_Intel_Reports_Fourth_Quarter_and_Full_Year_2020_1439.pdf https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/_9ea32bedbda3919ea6d9a1...

BeetleB 6y ago
And Intel paid $15B for it. It's not paid off yet.

_carbyau_ 6y ago

This just seems like Intel's version of Amazon's AWS. "Hey we have a world class [whatever] over here. Wonder if we can sell it to the world as well as using it for our business?"

Decker87 6y ago
Doesn't Amazon not use AWS for its main business?
- _carbyau_ 6y ago
  Yes it does. But Amazon built it for it's own use as well, to run the amazon website and systems. They had an initial datacentre but then built AWS with the idea to serve themselves and also sell hosting to the world. Which is what Intels move looks like to me. Go hard on Fabs, and sell production to others as well.

015a 6y ago

I question whether the move away from x86 is actually that much of a problem for Intel; ultimately, its just an instruction architecture, and at the end of the day the fabrication capacity is far more valuable than some old & busted IP. There's no reason to believe Intel couldn't adapt to an ARM-based future; they would just need the leadership to step in and make that investment. They haven't made it thus far, but I also legitimately believe its a fair decision not to; its not obvious to me, just some guy with nothing to lose, that my next server, or gaming desktop, or laptop, will or should run an ARM chip. Windows hasn't moved that way, not more than the nanometer Surface Pro X moved it, Linux hasn't outside of Android, really the only company that has said "yeah we're all in on ARM" is Apple. Well, they have their sandbox they play in, and it certainly influences the rest of the industry, but ultimately it is separate.

als0 6y ago
There’s a rumour that AMD are making an ARM chip for OEMs that want to compete with Apple.
- Aperocky 6y ago
  At what point does a chip stop being ARM and become AMD? Cortex series are pretty potent for commodity chips. Now Apple does have their completely different cores that just happen to use ARM instruction set, but I think most fabless are not focused on the cores themselves.
  - als0 6y ago
    > At what point does a chip stop being ARM and become AMD? I should have said arm64 chip. AMD is fabless and they do spend a lot of effort on core design.