5 ms·

Can anyone explain what evidence there is that Intel will be able to deliver all this? Not taking a view just interested in how to assess the credibility of th

Can anyone explain what evidence there is that Intel will be able to deliver all this? Not taking a view just interested in how to assess the credibility of the roadmap.

zionic 5y ago
For the curious: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/50551/intel-confirms-10nm-process-track-arrive-2017/index.html https://www.tweaktown.com/news/50551/intel-confirms-10nm-pro...
tablespoon 5y ago
Per the OP, it sounds like they're taking more conservative/incremental steps now, and their previous fault was that they were too ambitious and tried to do too much at once. My understanding is Intel's rivals also took a more incremental development process, which basically allowed them to capitalize on Intel's missteps.
- klelatti 5y ago
  Having watched the Webcast it didn't sound that conservative! 7,4,3,20A in 4 years.
  - websg-x 5y ago
    7 is half node, 4 full node, 3 half, 20A full node again. Moore's law is doubling of transistors density every 2 years. So the roadmap is indeed conservative, just following the Moore's law.
    - klelatti 5y ago
      How many years to deliver 14 -> 10 in volume? I think you're saying that the incremental half nodes steps are a more conservative approach?
      - websg-x 5y ago
        14->10 was a disaster so we should ignore that, and that the reason Pat Gelsinger is brought back to fixed. TSMC pioneered the half node step, and it was very successful. So yes, I think copying successful strategy is a conservative approach.
        klelatti 5y ago
        Indeed. It will be interesting to see how this will interact with architecture roll outs - I wasn't entirely clear how that would work from the webcast.
- bstar77 5y ago
  "But David Kanter, an analyst with Real World Technologies, said Intel is being more cautious than in the past. The years of delays resulted in part from the "hubris" of tackling multiple technical problems in a single generation of technology." That's some serious spin there. The chatter has been that Intel has had poor focus, poor working conditions, poor investments, poor communication within the company and a plethora of hubris. They need a culture overhaul and that seems to be what's happening. The jury is out to where they take this. I would bet on their competitors at this point.
  - paulmd 5y ago
    > The jury is out to where they take this. I would bet on their competitors at this point. that's a completely uninformed take on the topic. This is like betting on Airbus because Boeing has problems with the 737 - when the reality is there is no circumstance whatsoever where the federal government would allow Boeing to go under. Intel is already being propped up with some sweet gigs doing supercomputer stuff for the National Labs (that their actual hardware probably does not justify on the merits - much like the national labs throw AMD a bone with CDNA in the GPU compute market) and a bunch of R&D tax cuts. The US also negotiated their way into a TSMC gigafab as a fallback strategy but they very much would prefer the American fab company makes it through as well, and they'll spend the cash to make it happen. It's far cheaper and faster to get the existing competitor back up to speed, than to build a new foundry company from scratch, or even to just build a TSMC gigafab. Their competitors also aren't american companies. GloFo is controlled by UAE investors. TSMC is controlled by Taiwan. Samsung is controlled by a Korean chaebol. AMD and Apple are fabless companies. Intel is the only US company still designing chips and producing them at a US foundry on any kind of a competitive level in the performance computing market.
    - adrian_b 5y ago
      Even Intel cannot be considered as an 100% USA company. The Israel parts of Intel had essential roles for decades, both in CPU design and in manufacturing, so it is very unlikely that there exists any Intel IP or know-how to which Israel does not have complete access. The main difference is that Israel is considered as an ally.
nicoburns 5y ago
The fact that they've replaced their CEO with a highly-respected (within the company) former engineer and they've been rehiring a lot of other veteran former employees who were involved in many of their historical successes is certainly a good sign. It's still a tall order, but my reading is that they seem to be doing all the right things. And they certainly aren't short of cash to invest with.
- arcanus 5y ago
  > rehiring a lot of other veteran former employees who were involved in many of their historical successes is certainly a good sign They certainly are trying to get the band back together. I see little reason this means they can turn around a huge beast.
  - tw04 5y ago
    > I see little reason this means they can turn around a huge beast. Why do you see little reason? We have repeated examples in recent history of a strong leader turning around what appears to be an immovable object. Jobs at Apple. Nadella at Microsoft. Su at AMD. I see little reason to believe Intel can’t do the same. They have the technology and history to be successful, they just appear to have had management that wasn’t prepared to deal with a changing market.
    - shadilay 5y ago
      It wasn't Lisa Su that saved AMD from bankruptcy, it was Rory Read.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  I am also glad the Drone CEO is gone. At one point Intel was into drone transport: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFEYDzWJB00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFEYDzWJB00 . If they'd focus on semiconductor manufacturing that was slipping under his governance, Intel would be at a better place. And, fixing internal culture. Same with marketing team. Get back the 90's team that made many memorable adverts. Blueman group, bunny suit ads, the works. Pentium, the word alone brings fond memories. Absolutely legendary. The current Marketing/PR team has created a disaster after disaster (see LTT rants about all kinds of PR issues).
sremani 5y ago
It is a challenge and there are no guarantees. Intel has to delivery as much as possible on that roadmap, otherwise this management team is Kaput! edit: Intel seems to play a bit of marketing games here. (source Anand tech). 2021 H2, Intel 7: Previously known as 10nm Enhanced Super Fin or 10ESF. 2022 H2, Intel 4: Previously known as Intel 7nm.
- LeegleechN 5y ago
  Their competition are the ones who played marketing games already, skipping forward a node relative to pre FinFET scaling. Intel's rename aligns it with the rest of the industry in terms of transistor density on each process number. None of these numbers have aligned with physical features on the chip for a while, so they are just an arbitrary convention now. It's better for all of the manufacturers to use the same convention.
  - sremani 5y ago
    Could be, was informed (on HN) that Intel 10nm was more like Samsung 7nm and this is sort of adjusting to that.
  - paul_f 5y ago
    Correct! Numbers like 10nm and 7nm are no longer fully define the process.
- klelatti 5y ago
  Also what does 'deliver' really mean for a process - first 10nm shipped was in 2018!
- mike256 5y ago
  At least they name it Intel 7, Intel 4, ... And don't add missleading 'nm' to their names. Imho much better as what the other ones are doing.
- HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago
  Everybody, apparently except Intel, has already been doing this for years. It's been a long time since process names such as "7nm" actually reflected a minimum feature size of 7nm, and even if it did differing transistor designs means you can no longer predict transistor size/density from minimum feature size. A much more meaningful way to compare processes across different manufacturers is directly by transistor density, but the "nm" process generation naming tradition is so entrenched that every one is still using it but fudging the number in some sort of attempt to position/align their own processes against those of competitors. Of course it's not just transistor density that matters, but also power usage and speed, and no one number can capture it all
ksec 5y ago
They are basically rebranding their node size to TSMC's ( or more like Samsung's ) naming scheme. 10nm to 7nm. 7nm to 4nm 7nm+ to 3nm 5nm to 2nm And all of them make senes and has been known for quite some time. I remember writing something on SemiWiki in 2018. So really they are pushing their 7nm to next year, their first node with full usage of EUV. An iteration of 7nm in 2023. I say iteration when in reality that was always the original target of Intel's 7nm. And 5nm in 2024. 10nm is already shipping, and judging by their product lineup seems to be yielding a lot better. Their 7nm next year are all going to be for their Aurora project anyway. So my guess is that it is more like a place holder with little actual capacity for anyone else including Intel's DC and Consumer business. Shipping their own product with 7nm+ / 3nm in 2023. And the real test will be 2nm in 2024. Is it aggressive? Yes, plausible? I am quite optimistic. >evidence there is that Intel will be able to deliver all this? Yes. Intel's biggest problem wasn't 10nm, or their chip performance. It was their mentality of keeping Fat profit margin from end product sales. And business School to this day continue to teach the same crap over and over again. That is why having MBA as CEO in tech hardly ever works. The evidence here is quite clear. Intel is really betting on being a Foundry. I do not believe Qualcomm and Amazon will sign up Intel if the price wasn't right. It means Intel is finally doing their second Andrew Grove Moment pivoted Intel away from DRAM to microprocessors, except this time to Custom Fab. As he once said. "Our Strategy is Simple, we build Fabs and we fill them."
- klelatti 5y ago
  Foundry must be a no-brainer for them now given the political situation. Actually a bit surprised they didn't have more to announce on that front.
- MangoCoffee 5y ago
  >Intel is really betting on being a Foundry Intel should split into two. One a fabless company focus on chip design. The other a foundry business so there is no conflict of interest like Samsung. Apple pull out of Samsung partially because Samsung compete with Apple on smart phone. if Intel is serious about IDM 2.0. Intel needs to earn their customers trust. TSMC only focus on production and look where they are today.
trynumber9 5y ago
Other sources say they have some agreements with ASML. Intel will be the lead customer for ASML's high numerical aperture EUV machines. These will allow Intel to avoid double-patterning. Secondly, both Intel and Samsung are going for GAA while TSMC will still be delivering FinFET. The capital, agreements and plan to catch up is there. But it's always healthy to be skeptical on execution.
blihp 5y ago
There isn't any evidence at this point and it could go either way. Though if I had to place a bet, I wouldn't bet against Intel as they will likely have an influx of business/R&D funding from the U.S. govt as well as favorable policies/legislation to help ensure the outcome. In other words, it is Intel's to lose.

Can anyone explain what evidence there is that Intel will be able to deliver all this? Not taking a view just interested in how to assess the credibility of the roadmap.

zionic 5y ago

For the curious: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/50551/intel-confirms-10nm-process-track-arrive-2017/index.html https://www.tweaktown.com/news/50551/intel-confirms-10nm-pro...

tablespoon 5y ago

Per the OP, it sounds like they're taking more conservative/incremental steps now, and their previous fault was that they were too ambitious and tried to do too much at once. My understanding is Intel's rivals also took a more incremental development process, which basically allowed them to capitalize on Intel's missteps.

klelatti 5y ago
Having watched the Webcast it didn't sound that conservative! 7,4,3,20A in 4 years.
- websg-x 5y ago
  7 is half node, 4 full node, 3 half, 20A full node again. Moore's law is doubling of transistors density every 2 years. So the roadmap is indeed conservative, just following the Moore's law.
  - klelatti 5y ago
    How many years to deliver 14 -> 10 in volume? I think you're saying that the incremental half nodes steps are a more conservative approach?
    - websg-x 5y ago
      14->10 was a disaster so we should ignore that, and that the reason Pat Gelsinger is brought back to fixed. TSMC pioneered the half node step, and it was very successful. So yes, I think copying successful strategy is a conservative approach.
      - klelatti 5y ago
        Indeed. It will be interesting to see how this will interact with architecture roll outs - I wasn't entirely clear how that would work from the webcast.
bstar77 5y ago
"But David Kanter, an analyst with Real World Technologies, said Intel is being more cautious than in the past. The years of delays resulted in part from the "hubris" of tackling multiple technical problems in a single generation of technology." That's some serious spin there. The chatter has been that Intel has had poor focus, poor working conditions, poor investments, poor communication within the company and a plethora of hubris. They need a culture overhaul and that seems to be what's happening. The jury is out to where they take this. I would bet on their competitors at this point.
- paulmd 5y ago
  > The jury is out to where they take this. I would bet on their competitors at this point. that's a completely uninformed take on the topic. This is like betting on Airbus because Boeing has problems with the 737 - when the reality is there is no circumstance whatsoever where the federal government would allow Boeing to go under. Intel is already being propped up with some sweet gigs doing supercomputer stuff for the National Labs (that their actual hardware probably does not justify on the merits - much like the national labs throw AMD a bone with CDNA in the GPU compute market) and a bunch of R&D tax cuts. The US also negotiated their way into a TSMC gigafab as a fallback strategy but they very much would prefer the American fab company makes it through as well, and they'll spend the cash to make it happen. It's far cheaper and faster to get the existing competitor back up to speed, than to build a new foundry company from scratch, or even to just build a TSMC gigafab. Their competitors also aren't american companies. GloFo is controlled by UAE investors. TSMC is controlled by Taiwan. Samsung is controlled by a Korean chaebol. AMD and Apple are fabless companies. Intel is the only US company still designing chips and producing them at a US foundry on any kind of a competitive level in the performance computing market.
  - adrian_b 5y ago
    Even Intel cannot be considered as an 100% USA company. The Israel parts of Intel had essential roles for decades, both in CPU design and in manufacturing, so it is very unlikely that there exists any Intel IP or know-how to which Israel does not have complete access. The main difference is that Israel is considered as an ally.

nicoburns 5y ago

The fact that they've replaced their CEO with a highly-respected (within the company) former engineer and they've been rehiring a lot of other veteran former employees who were involved in many of their historical successes is certainly a good sign. It's still a tall order, but my reading is that they seem to be doing all the right things. And they certainly aren't short of cash to invest with.

arcanus 5y ago
> rehiring a lot of other veteran former employees who were involved in many of their historical successes is certainly a good sign They certainly are trying to get the band back together. I see little reason this means they can turn around a huge beast.
- tw04 5y ago
  > I see little reason this means they can turn around a huge beast. Why do you see little reason? We have repeated examples in recent history of a strong leader turning around what appears to be an immovable object. Jobs at Apple. Nadella at Microsoft. Su at AMD. I see little reason to believe Intel can’t do the same. They have the technology and history to be successful, they just appear to have had management that wasn’t prepared to deal with a changing market.
  - shadilay 5y ago
    It wasn't Lisa Su that saved AMD from bankruptcy, it was Rory Read.
systemvoltage 5y ago
I am also glad the Drone CEO is gone. At one point Intel was into drone transport: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFEYDzWJB00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFEYDzWJB00 . If they'd focus on semiconductor manufacturing that was slipping under his governance, Intel would be at a better place. And, fixing internal culture. Same with marketing team. Get back the 90's team that made many memorable adverts. Blueman group, bunny suit ads, the works. Pentium, the word alone brings fond memories. Absolutely legendary. The current Marketing/PR team has created a disaster after disaster (see LTT rants about all kinds of PR issues).

sremani 5y ago

It is a challenge and there are no guarantees. Intel has to delivery as much as possible on that roadmap, otherwise this management team is Kaput! edit: Intel seems to play a bit of marketing games here. (source Anand tech). 2021 H2, Intel 7: Previously known as 10nm Enhanced Super Fin or 10ESF. 2022 H2, Intel 4: Previously known as Intel 7nm.

LeegleechN 5y ago
Their competition are the ones who played marketing games already, skipping forward a node relative to pre FinFET scaling. Intel's rename aligns it with the rest of the industry in terms of transistor density on each process number. None of these numbers have aligned with physical features on the chip for a while, so they are just an arbitrary convention now. It's better for all of the manufacturers to use the same convention.
- sremani 5y ago
  Could be, was informed (on HN) that Intel 10nm was more like Samsung 7nm and this is sort of adjusting to that.
- paul_f 5y ago
  Correct! Numbers like 10nm and 7nm are no longer fully define the process.
klelatti 5y ago
Also what does 'deliver' really mean for a process - first 10nm shipped was in 2018!
mike256 5y ago
At least they name it Intel 7, Intel 4, ... And don't add missleading 'nm' to their names. Imho much better as what the other ones are doing.
HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago
Everybody, apparently except Intel, has already been doing this for years. It's been a long time since process names such as "7nm" actually reflected a minimum feature size of 7nm, and even if it did differing transistor designs means you can no longer predict transistor size/density from minimum feature size. A much more meaningful way to compare processes across different manufacturers is directly by transistor density, but the "nm" process generation naming tradition is so entrenched that every one is still using it but fudging the number in some sort of attempt to position/align their own processes against those of competitors. Of course it's not just transistor density that matters, but also power usage and speed, and no one number can capture it all

ksec 5y ago

They are basically rebranding their node size to TSMC's ( or more like Samsung's ) naming scheme. 10nm to 7nm. 7nm to 4nm 7nm+ to 3nm 5nm to 2nm And all of them make senes and has been known for quite some time. I remember writing something on SemiWiki in 2018. So really they are pushing their 7nm to next year, their first node with full usage of EUV. An iteration of 7nm in 2023. I say iteration when in reality that was always the original target of Intel's 7nm. And 5nm in 2024. 10nm is already shipping, and judging by their product lineup seems to be yielding a lot better. Their 7nm next year are all going to be for their Aurora project anyway. So my guess is that it is more like a place holder with little actual capacity for anyone else including Intel's DC and Consumer business. Shipping their own product with 7nm+ / 3nm in 2023. And the real test will be 2nm in 2024. Is it aggressive? Yes, plausible? I am quite optimistic. >evidence there is that Intel will be able to deliver all this? Yes. Intel's biggest problem wasn't 10nm, or their chip performance. It was their mentality of keeping Fat profit margin from end product sales. And business School to this day continue to teach the same crap over and over again. That is why having MBA as CEO in tech hardly ever works. The evidence here is quite clear. Intel is really betting on being a Foundry. I do not believe Qualcomm and Amazon will sign up Intel if the price wasn't right. It means Intel is finally doing their second Andrew Grove Moment pivoted Intel away from DRAM to microprocessors, except this time to Custom Fab. As he once said. "Our Strategy is Simple, we build Fabs and we fill them."

klelatti 5y ago
Foundry must be a no-brainer for them now given the political situation. Actually a bit surprised they didn't have more to announce on that front.
MangoCoffee 5y ago
>Intel is really betting on being a Foundry Intel should split into two. One a fabless company focus on chip design. The other a foundry business so there is no conflict of interest like Samsung. Apple pull out of Samsung partially because Samsung compete with Apple on smart phone. if Intel is serious about IDM 2.0. Intel needs to earn their customers trust. TSMC only focus on production and look where they are today.

trynumber9 5y ago

Other sources say they have some agreements with ASML. Intel will be the lead customer for ASML's high numerical aperture EUV machines. These will allow Intel to avoid double-patterning. Secondly, both Intel and Samsung are going for GAA while TSMC will still be delivering FinFET. The capital, agreements and plan to catch up is there. But it's always healthy to be skeptical on execution.

blihp 5y ago

There isn't any evidence at this point and it could go either way. Though if I had to place a bet, I wouldn't bet against Intel as they will likely have an influx of business/R&D funding from the U.S. govt as well as favorable policies/legislation to help ensure the outcome. In other words, it is Intel's to lose.