Intel 7nm Chips Coming in 2021
Click here to post a comment for Intel 7nm Chips Coming in 2021 on our message forum
Devid
How many of new roadmaps we will see from Intel before AMD launches it's Zen2 7nm?
Please take your bet wisely!:D
fantaskarsef
Just... had to laugh at that slide #7:
"Ensure supply" - Oh yeah?
"10nm products on shelves - on track full year shipping goals" - Oh yeah?
"Leadership products" - Oh yeah? Aren't we still running pumped up Skylake from 2015 in general? Four years no new architecture and no new node, and fundamental security flaws still in CPUs on shelves and in nearly every computer around this world?
Intel's like... getting boring to read news about.
slyphnier
yet here u are still reading and commenting on intel news 😀
Andy Watson
How many FABs have intel get doing 10nm? Considering it is a mobile chip and laptops are quite popular nowadays ( so young people tell me) will the supply be enough? Or will they be priced just above their current 14nm mobile chips which will soldier on.
I'm not going to bash Intel, they have given us years of great cpu's from Conroe onwards until these current problems, so it will be interesting to see how they get on.
It has allowed AMD some breathing space thankfully to still exist with their current good products to give competition.
sverek
Intel: Relentless innovation continues!
ALSO Intel:
14nm++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
fantaskarsef
hehe yeah it's true 😀
Kaarme
Let's believe it when we see it. Talk is cheap. Powerpoint slides only marginally less cheap. Intel products aren't cheap, though. I guess there's some kind of connection there.
ladcrooks
Cant see the problem here. They got 14nm already, why not just cut them in half 😀
ruthan
There is not real penalty for empty promises, because its common practice in this area.. so than fail in such environment..
nevcairiel
The Intel shortage in recent months was in part due to some fabs already transitioning to 10nm and as such reducing the 14nm capacity. But because of 10nm delays, that really hurt. Now that the 10nm fabs can spin up, it should definitely be getting better - in 14nm supply, and since new products require a bit of a runup time, also plenty in 10nm.
Mobile chips don't go from the fab to shelfes in a week. They go to laptop manufacturers and maybe on the shelfes in 4-6 months. Thats all time Intel has to produce 10nm stock. 🙂
Mundosold
10nm is a failure and won't even be better than 14nm+++++. That is why they aren't using it on desktops. But they put work into it so they want to get SOMETHING out of it, even if it is just marketing value.
2021 is a long ways away in the tech world.. Better start popping up new CTS LABS clones, and make illegal deals with Dell/HP to avoid using AMD processors.
Picolete
The Intel roadmap multiverse
sverek
nice.
Kaarme
What you are essentially saying is that Intel is still using the same Core 2 technology today. Which is true, of course, judging by the multi-generation spanning Spectre, Meltdown, and other vulnerabilities. Pretty embarrassing indeed, but not at all surprising considering they did nothing to give more performance to the mainstream customers until AMD kicked their ass.
Btw, single core speed is all Intel offers in a better form, and even then you are gonna pay extra for it.
There, I said whatever I wanted to say.
Denial
Fastest? Maybe. Best? Arguable.
Modern Intel processors are nothing like the original Core 2 processors - every single component has been redesigned since then. The branch prediction is totally different (notably Sandybridge where they changed away from trace to UOP cache) The front end decoder has been redesigned. The INT/FP pipelines were redesigned (notably the ALUs) they gained an address generation unit, the caches are different.. honestly the more I think about it, I would argue a modern Intel CPU is more different than Core 2 then Core 2 was to Pentium 4, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
IMO the only thing that even keeps Intel "faster" than AMD is the switching speed which is a combination of foundry and heavily optimized cell libraries.
Just because those vulnerabilities span multiple generations doesn't mean it's using the same technology. ARM processors were effected by those vulnerabilities - would you argue that ARM hardware is "essentially" Core 2? There is a convergence in the way things are processed - speculative execution for example is present in all modern processors but is implemented entirely differently in hardware.
tunejunky
nyet, nope, no
Intel's shortage was entirely Intel's own fault. they took excess contact work (iPhone X modems esp.) at a node they roadmapped for cpus. PERIOD.
Intel was and is complacent, thinking they can have it all and do it all. 10nm is and has been the largest embarrassment in the company's history.
and they didn't need to be - this was all done in the corporate suites after the engineers told them better, but the marketing folks (as they have the last seven years) won the day.
Intel has imho, the very best minds in the business - as far as engineering. but the management is stuck "fighting the last wars" instead of focusing on the actual market, and one of the worst "last wars" is putting the cart in front of the horse and expecting people to buy it as something "new".
Kaarme
Uhh... Yes it does. It's a hardware level vulnerability. They didn't resign it entirely, so the same vulnerabilities are still there. The only thing I give Intel due respect for is fairly quickly adapting new SATA, USB, and other such standards. Those parts of the CPU they definitely did redesign. As for the rest, it's just your word. I do find it a little suspicious they would have completely redesigned them yet still be left with the exact same flaws. Not to mention the performance was only increased with clocks, like with my Ivy Bridge -> Skylake "upgrade".
I don't know why you are talking about ARMs here. I see no relevance. They aren't relatives of Intel's x86-64 CPUs. If they have flaws, they are their own flaws.
Denial
What are you talking about?
https://meltdownattack.com/
The flaw is in speculative execution. It doesn't matter what hardware is performing it. They call it a hardware flaw because it's at the hardware level but there are multiple ways to implement speculative execution in hardware. It's essentially abusing a paradigm of hardware. You can completely redesign the way the hardware is looking to execute future code but the flaw itself tricking the processor to execute future code it's not supposed to. Intel/ARM/AMD I think even Xilinx - they all do speculative execution and they are all vulnerable to the exact same vector of attack. Are all these processors "essentially core 2s" ? No.
HWgeek
Look at Intel's stock today- seems like the shareholders and investor's also don't buy this marketing slides- Stock price fell over 25% in last 30 days!.
waltc3
If not for AMD, there'd have been no x86-64 Core 2 onward--and we'd all be paying through the nose running 64-bit Itanium--assuming Intel was even offering a consumer-based 64-bit Itanium cpu at all, that is. Yes, we could well be running 2GHz 32-bit cpus on our desktops, costing thousands of $, if it had been left up to Intel. Intel is the company that actually ran an advertising campaign entitled: "You don't need 64-bits on the desktop," years ago in response to AMD launching the first x86-64 cpu, the A64. It was through a cross-licensing deal with Intel that Intel got license to x86-64, interestingly enough.
