3 ms·

I can really see Intel figuring this out. A lot of people on HN talking about Intel as an also-ran just like they spoke about AMD before Zen. Raptor Lake is at

I can really see Intel figuring this out. A lot of people on HN talking about Intel as an also-ran just like they spoke about AMD before Zen. Raptor Lake is at 7nm and incredibly competitive there (~2700 single core on geekbench, taken with a pinch of salt). They’re still planning on being on 1.8nm/18A within 2 years, while at the same time ramping up their GPU efforts (albeit using TSMC for 4nm). Nvidia is very much in the lead, but this is just the beginning. tldr; I ain’t hear no bell.

andromeduck 3y ago
The problem with Intel is: 1. They don't pay - Nvidia/Google/Apple easily pays 1.5-2x Intel before appreciattion. 2. They're cheap/beaurcratic. The office sucks, your laptop sucks. 3. They suck at software. https://pharr.org/matt/blog/2018/04/18/ispc-origins https://pharr.org/matt/blog/2018/04/18/ispc-origins 4. They can't develop/retain talent. Half the ML-HW/FW teams at AMD/Google/Nvidia/Apple are ex-Intel.
- Panzer04 3y ago
  How is that indicative of not developing talent? Sounds like they have a fairly robust pipeline if so many end up working at other companies... (Retention notwithstanding :P)
  - andromeduck 3y ago
    They lost most of their talent in the early/mid 2010s but you're right to an extent for non-software. For software they're not a terrible place to accumulate domain specific knowledge but don't really retain people long enough or promote quick enough to make a difference.
jjpprrrr 3y ago
Raptor Lake uses the "Intel 7" node which is actually 10nm, not 7 nm. It does have roughly the same density as TSMC's 7nm node.
- paulmd 3y ago
  In reality it literally is as simple as “intel says it’s 7nm so it’s 7nm”, but density is what determines the node number, insofar as anything determines it beyond marketing. So, if intel 7 is a 10nm class node then so is tsmc N7. But the whole industry cooked their node names a decade ago and intel is allowed to do the same terminology. To do anything otherwise would be a needless marketing disadvantage. If someone’s cheating on marketing, everyone has to - and the reality was everyone but intel was already cheating.
  - highwaylights 3y ago
    This, but also if we took it at face value (we shouldn't for the reasons in the reply above), then this means Intel is even further ahead when adjusting for the difference in node sizes. i.e. This would mean Intel will be getting a four-node-scale jump in performance (10nm->7nm->5nm->3nm->1.8nm) from where they are with Raptor Lake by 2025 if they can stay on track. I don't have any insight into this but I would hope Pat Geslinger is righting the salary, perks and incentive structure as a matter of priority to stop the shedding of talent.
    - paulmd 3y ago
      > I don't have any insight into this but I would hope Pat Geslinger is righting the salary, perks and incentive structure as a matter of priority to stop the shedding of talent. Absolutely not and this is one of the strongest headwinds intel faces. They just did a big round of layoffs and then everyone who didn’t get cut got a surprise 20% pay cut after, and retention bonuses for seniors was typically low-3-digits to high-2-digits. Principle engineers were solidly 3 digits though. And then they did stock buybacks that exceeded the size of the layoffs and pay cuts. Intel is fucking broke and they’re gonna have to cut every cost they can to focus on their key markets, and do it with personnel that were already underpaid and have better opportunities elsewhere. Not that labor is the straw that’s breaking intel’s back here but the situation is really AMD-in-2012 level dire, they have an incredibly long and expensive road to return to profitability and they will have to do it with whatever they can scrape up out of a staff that was already abused even in the “good times”. Oh and they want you to move from desirable west-coast locations (well, except Arizona) to Ohio. And they’re massively behind on their tech stack (fighting uphill is not what everyone wants) in a failing org with a ton of middle-management rot and neglect. And they’re still failing to execute a huge amount of the time, causing massive delays, etc. It’s really really dire and just because intel has staunched the worst of the financial bleeding doesn’t mean there’s much light at the end of the tunnel. Like Boeing I don’t think they will be allowed to go under, they’re strategically too important, but they’re gonna have a bad time for a while and probably legitimately do need a bunch of subsidy and “pity contracts” for national labs HPC computers to stay on their feet - just like AMD did.

andromeduck 3y ago

The problem with Intel is: 1. They don't pay - Nvidia/Google/Apple easily pays 1.5-2x Intel before appreciattion. 2. They're cheap/beaurcratic. The office sucks, your laptop sucks. 3. They suck at software. https://pharr.org/matt/blog/2018/04/18/ispc-origins https://pharr.org/matt/blog/2018/04/18/ispc-origins 4. They can't develop/retain talent. Half the ML-HW/FW teams at AMD/Google/Nvidia/Apple are ex-Intel.

Panzer04 3y ago
How is that indicative of not developing talent? Sounds like they have a fairly robust pipeline if so many end up working at other companies... (Retention notwithstanding :P)
- andromeduck 3y ago
  They lost most of their talent in the early/mid 2010s but you're right to an extent for non-software. For software they're not a terrible place to accumulate domain specific knowledge but don't really retain people long enough or promote quick enough to make a difference.

jjpprrrr 3y ago

Raptor Lake uses the "Intel 7" node which is actually 10nm, not 7 nm. It does have roughly the same density as TSMC's 7nm node.

paulmd 3y ago
In reality it literally is as simple as “intel says it’s 7nm so it’s 7nm”, but density is what determines the node number, insofar as anything determines it beyond marketing. So, if intel 7 is a 10nm class node then so is tsmc N7. But the whole industry cooked their node names a decade ago and intel is allowed to do the same terminology. To do anything otherwise would be a needless marketing disadvantage. If someone’s cheating on marketing, everyone has to - and the reality was everyone but intel was already cheating.
- highwaylights 3y ago
  This, but also if we took it at face value (we shouldn't for the reasons in the reply above), then this means Intel is even further ahead when adjusting for the difference in node sizes. i.e. This would mean Intel will be getting a four-node-scale jump in performance (10nm->7nm->5nm->3nm->1.8nm) from where they are with Raptor Lake by 2025 if they can stay on track. I don't have any insight into this but I would hope Pat Geslinger is righting the salary, perks and incentive structure as a matter of priority to stop the shedding of talent.
  - paulmd 3y ago
    > I don't have any insight into this but I would hope Pat Geslinger is righting the salary, perks and incentive structure as a matter of priority to stop the shedding of talent. Absolutely not and this is one of the strongest headwinds intel faces. They just did a big round of layoffs and then everyone who didn’t get cut got a surprise 20% pay cut after, and retention bonuses for seniors was typically low-3-digits to high-2-digits. Principle engineers were solidly 3 digits though. And then they did stock buybacks that exceeded the size of the layoffs and pay cuts. Intel is fucking broke and they’re gonna have to cut every cost they can to focus on their key markets, and do it with personnel that were already underpaid and have better opportunities elsewhere. Not that labor is the straw that’s breaking intel’s back here but the situation is really AMD-in-2012 level dire, they have an incredibly long and expensive road to return to profitability and they will have to do it with whatever they can scrape up out of a staff that was already abused even in the “good times”. Oh and they want you to move from desirable west-coast locations (well, except Arizona) to Ohio. And they’re massively behind on their tech stack (fighting uphill is not what everyone wants) in a failing org with a ton of middle-management rot and neglect. And they’re still failing to execute a huge amount of the time, causing massive delays, etc. It’s really really dire and just because intel has staunched the worst of the financial bleeding doesn’t mean there’s much light at the end of the tunnel. Like Boeing I don’t think they will be allowed to go under, they’re strategically too important, but they’re gonna have a bad time for a while and probably legitimately do need a bunch of subsidy and “pity contracts” for national labs HPC computers to stay on their feet - just like AMD did.