Comments Locked

79 Comments

Back to Article

  • ajp_anton - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    "Now, as it turns out, Intel’s 10nm may be a short-living node as the company’s 7nm tech is on-track for introduction in accordance with its original schedule."

    Original schedule? So they will launch 7nm CPUs in less than a month?
  • romrunning - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    This article could definitely be more informative by telling us the "original" schedule and when Intel expects to release 7nm.
  • sbrown23 - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    "So, we are very, very focused on getting 7nm out according to our original internal plans.” -Murthy Renduchintala

    Being an 'internal' schedule, perhaps Intel has not shared that publicly or with AnandTech... just a thought.
  • Opencg - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    By original schedule surely they mean an arbitrarily chosen undisclosed schedule and not the original publicly announced schedule.

    Clearly intel is doing fine. Just fine.
  • III-V - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    They never had a publicly announced schedule for 7nm...
  • name99 - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link

    Wrong:
    IDF13
    Intel has worked hard to bury this slide, but you can still find it in strange places:
    https://zive.azet.sk/clanok/68535/intel-chysta-7-n...
  • Gondalf - Sunday, December 9, 2018 - link

    Anyway Intel said 2021 7nm shipment from Fab 42. At least this was the official claim done to Trump.
    This is well in line with Foundries real mass production on 5nm.
  • romrunning - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    Sure, it could be an internal schedule, but they usually have roadmaps each year that show where these process improvements are generally expected to hit production. Likely the "original" schedule was on a past roadmap.

    I just hoped that maybe a little investigative journalism could dig through some of the publicly available material & piece together some of the timetables referenced. Or maybe even an off-the-record comment could be pieced to add to the rumor mill.
  • ajc9988 - Monday, December 17, 2018 - link

    https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=133365...
    2021 for 7nnm+EUV
  • HStewart - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    My guess and only a guess - is that Intel has been working on this a while and with all the back lash about 10nm - decide to some serious reorganization in process department and took its current 10nm has a wash. Likely some of staff lost there jobs on this issue. And moving to Ice Lake to new 7nm format - I believe Intel wants a super fast - low power product by 2019.

    I do give credit to AMD for stepping up competition for Intel - but I believe this is Intel's response for this challenge and expecting Intel to fire back extremely hard.
  • evilpaul666 - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    I'm sure they want to, but they have to actually do it. It's not like they've fought back with pricing.
  • FreckledTrout - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    History shows Intel will hit back very hard. AMD hopefully will get a good deal of market share in 2019 because 2020 Intel will be on a rampage.
  • HStewart - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    Who knows Intel maybe trying for 2019 -- today's news is very interesting and they obviously have been keep it secret - even though it logically that they would correct the issue with much blacklash 10nm - with competition hyping up 7nm process it would logical that Intel skip the 10nm for revised and even faster 7nm version.

    Of course Intel's original 10nm was equivalent to competition's 7nm in terms of density, so this new version is likely even more dense.
  • 0ldman79 - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    The rumor was the density was the problem.

    They reached too far on the 10nm too fast. They increased density more on 10nm than they had in the last several previous at least.

    We have no idea what they did different with 7nm yet. Odds are they stuck to the older process density gains which would put them just a tad better than other lithographies.

    They may have had to back off of the density, that may be why 7nm is on target, because they watched 10nm fail and changed their plans accordingly.
  • HStewart - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    We will like find out on Dec 11th, who knows what the problem with older 10nm - probably Cobalt didn't work out - since they reduce the size from 10nm to 7nm - they could have close to same density.

    What ever it is, Intel has obviously decide that group doing 10nm stuff should not be involved. They did mention the 10nm was a major change in process - it obviously looks like not ready for prime time. They likely been working on this for more than year - just keeping it under raps.

    Intel has had a bad rap for 2 or more years - with 10nm stuff and Spectre/Meltdown stuff and it would be foolish to think Intel is not hard at working on making that better. I think this just a first indication of out come of such efforts - and we should find out more. One thing frustrating is that I have yet to know of known virus that uses the Spectre/Meltdown stuff - of what I seen most of seems to effect unix base servers - probably bad programming.
  • sa666666 - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, speak in broken sentences, and pass off your 'opinion' as fact. Now you're stating that Spectre/Meltdown is not Windows, but strictly a UNIX problem (bad programming, ah!). Why don't you go back to your .Net programming and leave the discussion of these issues to actual professionals.

    You know, I don't know if you're a paid troll or you honestly believe the drivel you constantly post. Either way, you are one disturbed individual.
  • PeachNCream - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link

    "You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, speak in broken sentences, and pass off your 'opinion' as fact."

    I've asked and gotten silence regarding whether or not English is a first language for HStewart, but I would be reluctant to hassle said person regarding the communication problem. Some people are simply bad at written expression. I've supervised a number of brilliant programmers and engineers that were native English speakers, but were just as impossibly bad at communicating. I'm not implying HStewart is among said brilliant folks, but that language probably shouldn't be fair game as we simply lack enough information to consider it a factor in an assessment of his motives.

    As for the speculation about him being a paid troll, I doubt it. There are people out there that will turn themselves into slobbering, irrational defenders of uncaring corporate entities for stupid reasons like avoiding buyer's remorse or to get seek attention from others even if said attention is negative. I think his actions would be viewed by Intel's marketing and PR folks as negatively impacting rather than a benefit to their objectives. If it isn't already obvious, his comments cause rather than control or mitigate damage to the brand name. The company would present a more insightful and thoughtful defense of its own operations than HStewart is capable of articulating. He strikes me as an isolated person with few aspects of his personal life that would give it any meaning so brand loyalty is what he latches himself to in order to stave off feelings of loneliness and inadequacy. You're probably better off disregarding his posts and interacting with people that are willing to engage in a give-and-take conversation rather than spout what they think is positive corporate propaganda while ignoring the value of your thoughts.
  • bobhumplick - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link

    i think they will continue with a loosened up 10nm for the destkop with quad patterning on duvl since the yields will be better on non xeon chips and maybe a 10nm+ with EUV followed by a 7nm with EUV and dual patterning around 2021 or so
  • ajc9988 - Monday, December 17, 2018 - link

    https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=133365...
    Predicted that Intel will cede EUV lead to TSMC and Samsung. In fact, according to that article, EUV was to come late 2021. This gets to their pivot to work on cobalt contacts and COAG.

    What we should see is a modified 10nm from their original design that is less dense with mainstream chips around end of 2019, then that coming to HEDT and servers in 2020. Since articles suggested Intel was looking at moving 7nm up, then next we hear is it is on track, we shouldn't see 7nm EUV until 2021 to 2022.

    Sunny Cove/Ice lake should bring around 9-11% IPC gains, which may put it just ahead of Zen 2, but Zen 3 will be coming in 2020 on 7nm+ with EUV, which does not, in itself, have any information on process performance benefits, instead giving area reduction and power efficiency in limited amounts.

    Intel will then do either their Tiger lake uarch (they rebranded naming, but we know roughly what the uarchs are) or sapphire/granite rapids in 2020-21, followed by the node shrink, which 7nm EUV from Intel is expected to be around the 3nm/5nm nodes of TSMC and Samsung, which TSMC 3nm is expected around 2022/23 while Samsung claims 3nm in 2021.

    Intel won't regain the process lead in any meaningful sense. But, that does not mean they cannot compete on microarchitectures. In fact, I do believe they will come out swinging around 2021 hard. Meanwhile, AMD will have taken market and mind share to a degree by then.

    So we are roughly in agreement except for introduction of EUV date.
  • TheJian - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link

    Market share means nothing if you don't make good margins on them as the poor guy. No point in gaining market if you're making 43mil for the year. Current prices that just leaked (wccftech) look like AMD still doesn't know how to price a product or make hay while the sun shines. You NEED R&D money and that only comes with NET INCOME yearly. Hopefully servers will save the company from themselves next year. I don't think the rampage happens until 2021 and if they get 7nm out in volume by then. Not sure how bloody they can make it if they are conservative with 7nm as it sounds as they try to not repeat 10nm fiasco. I sounds like their 7nm won't be much better than TSMC, and they are on a march with 5nm already, so even if it's good it will be facing TSMC 5nm in short order. Their 5nm risk production starts 2h2019, so they should hit with that around xmas 2020 if it's early H2 2019 for risk. Tapeouts 5nm Q2 2019. Again, not sure Intel will be ahead for long if at all right? Assuming TSMC keeps marching on (and they appear to be getting more disciplined recently, apple 7nm hit how long ago?), Intel won't be dominating fab life any time soon. The rest caught up as they blew 16B+ in mobile instead of FABS. That hurt, and I think that is a lot of why we are where we're at now. I mean, TSMC is making chips for them...LOL. That is just embarrassing for USA, but good for my AMD stock with shortages for a while :) I just hope AMD capitalizes and does NOT charge the meager pricing that was leaked for 7nm cpus. That will be a colossal waste of a year of INCOME that can easily be had vs. Intel 14nm.

    People PAY for perf and they'll certainly do it for perf AND more cores at reasonable watts finally vs. Intel. You should get better perf in almost everything but a few games probably if speeds etc are right. I really hope management FINALLY charges what they are worth rather than pricing themselves to death in a war they should NOT start (price I mean) and one they certainly can't WIN. Pissing away profit while at a major advantage should get management FIRED by the board or shareholder activists. AMD's future R&D is riding on the next 18-24 months before Intel gets back on level field of fabs, or as you called it, their "rampage" :)
  • ajc9988 - Monday, December 17, 2018 - link

    Then you didn't dive into AMD's Q3 earnings. CPUs made up 70% of their sales in the consumer segment, with GPUs just 30%. Magically their margins jumped up by like 3 or 4%. Why? Because they have margin left in the tank. On 7nm, the dies per wafer will offset the costs of the wafer easily, which may allow for the leaks going on. First you go for market share, which they have had a windfall due to now having 3x+ what they used to get in server segment (Q4 they are looking at mid-single digits, a bit above 10x the market share they previously had in servers alone), not to mention workstation where Intel's HEDT market got hit decently hard by TR, and mainstream.

    TSMC 5nm Risk production is Q2, not H2, so you are missing it. 7nm EUV designs are already taped out and volume 5nm is planned for Q2 2020.

    Meanwhile Intel's 7nm EUV is late 2021: https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=133365...

    Moreover, Intel is making all the right moves NOW. But that fruit won't bear for years.
  • eastcoast_pete - Monday, December 10, 2018 - link

    History did show that Intel hit back with very dirty tricks when the competition (AMD) got uncomfortably close. Intel ended up paying fines for their tactics to blackball AMD from the largest PC manufacturers at the time, but the damage to AMD was done, and AMD almost went under as a result. I hope that this time they hit back the right way, by delivering superior tech with better price/value than AMD. In the meantime, sites like Anandtech can help keeping chipzilla honest by reporting on anything that smells fishy.
  • Targon - Monday, December 10, 2018 - link

    You mean that Intel will resort to illegal tactics to stop AMD from gaining market share when AMD has the superior product?
  • Santoval - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link

    "And moving to Ice Lake to new 7nm format.."
    That is certainly not going to happen. Ice Lake is going to be fabbed at 10nm+ and its successor Tiger Lake at 10nm++. Afterwards the picture is unclear. Wikichip still mentions Alder Lake (at 10nm++?) and Meteor Lake (at 7nm), to be released in 2021 and 2022 respectively. However due to Intel's constant delays and the subsequent start of the development of Ocean Cove this will probably be released instead (probably in 2022), either at Intel's last 10nm node or their first 7nm node.

    I imagine Intel would like Cove, as their first post-Lake (and even post-Core supposedly) architecture to be fabbed at 7nm. The earliest possible release of Cove, assuming everything goes according to plan, with not a single month of delay either at their fab or design wing, would be in late 2021 - early 2022 (Q4 2019 - Q1 2020 consumer Ice Lake, Q3 to Q4 2020 consumer Tiger Lake and server Ice Lake, no Alder/Meteor Lake release, 2H 2021 server Tiger Lake, and Q4 2021 - Q1 2022 consumer Ocean Cove at either 10nm+++ or 7nm).

    This is of course an extremely unrealistic and improbably scenario, which would require all of Intel's lucky stars to perfectly align at the same time. A "2x scaling factor" of 7nm compared to 10nm is still 200+ MTr/mm^2 (million transistors per mm^2), which is simply impossible to do today in anything more than samples due to the immature state of EUV and the low number of EUV scanners. The earliest year I could see Intel releasing 7nm based CPUs in high volume (I'd guess Ocean Cove) is in 2023.
  • stockolicious - Wednesday, December 12, 2018 - link

    That doesn't pass the timing test - If INTC had 7nm ready to go in 2019 what is Raja and Jim Keller doing there? designing for 2025? Raja and Jim have been there less than a year when is anything going to come out with their name on it if they have 7nm and designs aligned for 2019?
  • stockolicious - Wednesday, December 12, 2018 - link

    also, it appears INTC is moving full steam ahead in a lot of bold adventures without a CEO and that has been quite some time now. Just a gut feeling but I think they are just marketing now.
  • FreckledTrout - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    It's the old bow and arrow management trick. Pull the bow back and fire arrow into the sky. Run up to where the arrow landed in the dirt and paint a bullseye on it. Then proclaim loudly we hit it dead center.
  • HStewart - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    Good and expensive management trick, to create a new FAB just for 7nm - no wonder Intel sold the old Micron FAB
  • 0ldman79 - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    hahahaha!
  • name99 - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link

    The ORIGINAL schedule (what they said at IDF13) was 7nm in 2017...
  • sa666666 - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    Just in time before the supposed AMD announcement for Ryzen 3000 CPUs at CES in January. "Please, just wait a little longer, and we absolutely guarantee that our future product will be the best you've ever seen. Don't bother buying AMD, wait for us to catch up".

    Their marketing is showing up, just like clockwork.
  • FreckledTrout - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    Intel and Nvidia have both used these tactics however they both have also delivered on the "next" thing. The best thing AMD can do is get EPYC on Zen 2 out the door soon so they have a lot of 2019 to lead in performance per watt to get as much data center adoption as possible. The cloud providers are all itching for a proper 2nd CPU manufacturer other than Intel so they have multiple channels and to allow some negotiating on prices.
  • Targon - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    More like AMD will be leading in single core performance, multi-threaded performance, performance per watt, and performance per dollar(or euro).
  • moozooh - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    So far there's been no indication at all that AMD is going to lead in single-core performance, or per-core performance in general. That has long been Intel's forte, which is why their Skylake-X, already a dated microarch by modern standards, can rival and outperform Ryzens having more cores.

    Leadership in Performance per watt is likely but not a given yet. Multi-threaded performance and performance/price ratio, AMD is already there.
  • 0ldman79 - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    Look at the integer units compared between Zen and the Lakes.

    If AMD gets enough market share to actually get people to optimize for Zen they'll beat Intel.

    The reason it's this close is that AMD is playing Intel's game. I really want to see someone optimize for Zen. In simple programs it should be close between them, in more complex, parallel code Zen should be a good deal faster.

    Might not ever happen, it never did for the FX. There was performance left on the table with that design.
  • notb - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    I'd rather see them leading in cooperation with OEMs, compatibility, distribution chain and support. They won't win a large portion of CPU market by just making fast CPUs.

    Today there's basically just one market niche where EPYC got any noticeable traction: massive datacenters with custom built systems. And even there the share is somehow tiny compared to Intel.

    EPYC has been around for a long time and I have yet to see a company buying an EPYC-powered server from the top OEMs. So it's pretty much the same story as with Ryzen PRO.
  • HStewart - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    Single core - performance - seriously doubt that
    Multi-core performance - just add more cores

    It would be foolish to believe that Intel is not acting on this - with the hype of AMD along with blacklash of 10nm and security issues - Intel will likely delivery in 2019 with re-vengous with 7nm

    I think of saying from attack on Pearl Harbor "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve" and Dune - "Sleeper has awaken" which of course is Intel - it is not overnight that a company can create a new FAB facility as indicated above in article - likely a year in development and very smart of them to keep most of it secret
  • FreckledTrout - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    Agree. Intel will be back with a vengeance. I can assume Intels 7nm is going to likely be slightly better than TSMC's next gen 5nm node. I'm just hoping AMD can do very well in 2019 so they can continue the competition once Intel responds so this isn't a repeat of Athlon days. We have seen all to well what lack of competition looks like.
  • HStewart - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    Just because TSMC's uses a smaller number does not mean the node is more dense.

    Keep in mind Desktop market is minimal market - unlike AMD is primary Desktop, so going to 7nm and lower power requirements will help the laptop market a lot.
  • FreckledTrout - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link

    You probably want to reread what I said as you arguing for the same point I just made. "Intels 7nm is going to likely be slightly better than TSMC's next gen 5nm node." lol
  • Wilco1 - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link

    AMD's CPUs are still going to be twice as dense anyway like they are today.
  • ajc9988 - Monday, December 17, 2018 - link

    7nm isn't planned until around 2021. They can't pull it in any closer than 2020 at best!
  • FreckledTrout - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    I'm pulling for AMD but I really can't go beyond performance per watt which the new 7nm process almost guarantees vs Intel's chips on 14nm. If AMD takes the single threaded performance crown I will be thrilled but I doubt it will happen.
  • HStewart - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    Don't you get the point of this article - it means Intel has move away from 10nm problems and invested in new 7nm process which means - Intel is going attack AMD with vengeance.

    I also think Intel is likely very upset with 8705g deal with AMD, for the GPU short ended deal with giving Intel older version of GPU. Originally I thought that was based on Apple requirement.
  • sa666666 - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    And again, totally unfounded speculation and made up facts. Where do you get this crap from?
  • FreckledTrout - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link

    Not sure what you disagree with in my statement as we are mostly saying the same thing other than your speculation on Intel being mad about the 8705g deal.
  • sing_electric - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    As I said elsewhere - the issue is that while AMD's Ryzen 3xxx processors will feature IPC and clock improvements over their current stuff, Intel's previously said that their 10nm process would be SLOWER than 14nm++, though 10nm+ would be slightly faster.

    That really puts Intel in a difficult place if reports are true and AMD's Zen 2 (Ryzen 3xxx) will have a 10-12% IPC jump, given that AMD should also be able to increase clockspeed at the same time.
  • sbrown23 - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    Good. Intel needs to be threatened. They've had it too easy for too long. The P4/Athlon64 years where AMD held the advantage lead to the major advancements with in the Core Duo/Quad series and Core i. This time I just hope AMD can keep up with the architectural advances to continue to hold Intel's feet to the fire for the long term.

    I, for one, plan to buy a Ryzen 3xxx series rather than an Intel 9th gen or whatever comes next.
  • FreckledTrout - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    The 10nm process just has clock speed issues that they wont fix until 10nm+. AMD wil have the upper hand with Zen 2 but lets not count Intel out they have the money and some really damn good engineers. Im pulling for AMD buts lets be realiztic AMD has 2019 to do its worst then Intel is going to punch back hard.
  • HStewart - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    This is obviously more than just Marketing, since article shows a new Plant for 7nm process.
  • PeachNCream - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    Sunflower!
  • HStewart - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    Manufacturing plant FAB 42 in Chandler, Arizona!
  • sing_electric - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    It's interesting that Intel is blaming its 10nm issues on SAQP, since TSMC's 7nm process also uses SAQP and they seemingly haven't had the issues with yields that Intel has, since they're shipping in bulk to Apple, MediaTek and others.

    Intel's publicly said that they expect their 1st gen 10nm process to be lower-performing than 14nm++ (part of the reason that their first 10nm chip out was an i3 instead of an i7 or something). At the time, they said they expected 10nm+ to finally be faster. I wonder how many "10nm+" features they've been able to bake in to the 1st gen tech while they've been trying to increase yields - if it's not many, then it looks like 10nm may be a short-lived node indeed, with AMD nipping at Intel's heels on performance (again, assuming 10nm isn't a performance increase over what we're seeing now).
  • edzieba - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    That was definitely an eyebrow-raiser, the introduction of the Cobalt was generally taken as the big speed bump. Either they're playing "don't mention the war!", Or they may be switching from from Cobalt back to Copper for 7nm.
  • HStewart - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    Where do you see them blaming it on SAQP.

    We are talking about Node process - actually CPU functionality should not be related - fox example AVX 512 and other enhancements.

    I believe 7nm - just allows it to have more logic and run at higher speeds and lower power.
  • iwod - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    >Where do you see them blaming it on SAQP.

    It is written in the article.
  • FreckledTrout - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link

    If you read between the lines from what all Intel has said over the last year I think this sums up the issues. Intel tried to go to dense with 10nm using SAQP which at the end of the day needed use EUV as the quad patterning just isn't as precise EUV. This is exactly why TSMC is successful because even their 7nm is slightly less dense than Intel's original plan for 10nm. once Intel is up on 7nm EUV I suspect they will be back in the lead for densities but honestly at this point it doesn't matter as there is a whole lot more to improve until a completely new way of creating chips occurs.
  • davidefreeman - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    If this comment holds true, Intel is in terrible, unless it means for years after the +planned+ launch of 10nm.

    implies that its 7nm products may hit the market earlier than we might expect today (i.e., four years after the 10nm).
  • Poik - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    My interpretation is the 7nm timeline hast changed. They figured they would have 4 years at 10nm and then transition to 7nm in year 5. Year 5 is looking to hold true, but the 10nm timeline is becoming shorter and shorter as time moves forward.
  • PeachNCream - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    That is similar to the impression I got. It seems as though 10nm delays are not impacting anything but 10nm production. 7nm was planned for year x and will likely go into production at the intended time.
  • halcyon - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link

    Quoted from the article: "four years after the 10 nm"

    Indeed, does this mean that first production will start in 2022-2023.

    And big volume production by late 2023 or early 2024?

    That is still a long ways off.

    Interesting that Intel has had to resort to marketing technology this far out.

    Perhaps the investor pressure has finally gotten to them?
  • eva02langley - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    Okay, so this seems to be way truer than what Intel responded after the fact:

    https://www.semiaccurate.com/2018/10/22/intel-kill...

    10nm seems way more unlikely as more as time is passing.
  • Kevin G - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    While Intel has 10 nm on their roadmap, one has to wonder how much benefit there is doing it if 7 nm is so close.

    Several high profile 10 nm designs have already been canceled (Cannon Lake on desktop, Xeon Phi etc.). There are a couple of mobile parts Intel could still move but volume certainly wouldn't be what they'd initially had hoped. At some point management has to look at the costs of starting high volume production vs. waiting for 7 nm.
  • JoeyJoJo123 - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    >Intel’s 10nm may be a short-living node as the company’s 7nm tech is on-track for introduction in accordance with its original schedule.

    Somehow, I doubt this. This is likely optimistic announcements, like the last 4 times they said 10nm was coming soon(tm), to please stakeholders and prevent people from dumping their stock.

    I'll believe it when I see it. Trends show Intel hasn't been able to meet their optimistic predictions on node shrinks. I don't see that trend changing.
  • eva02langley - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    I honestly believe that Intel might go fabless in 10 years. There is no reason to keep fighting Samsung and TSMC if they have the same process and offer better yield and better raw supplies.

    I am sure they will keep their 14nm and 7nm fabs, but why would they try to push it further if the competition is there faster? All the big companies are fabless anyway.
  • Anymoore - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    Intel still wants pellicles for EUV: https://www.euvlitho.com/2018/P4.pdf "Every tool has shown defects after weeks of clean performance"
  • yannigr2 - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    10nm from Intel are also on track the last 4-5 years.
  • PeachNCream - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    This is good news in general. Since Intel's response to Zen was to simply throw in more cores and therefore toss energy efficiency out the window on high end chips like the 9900k in order to keep up with the competition a move to a 7nm may help to mitigate some of that power and heat stupidity. The last thing computers need is for CPUs to follow the trail being blazed by GPUs and their ever inflating power needs.
  • s.yu - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    "defined a different optimization point between transistor density, power and performance and schedule predictability"...so this means that they've just assigned lower densities to the same names to meet the schedule.
  • iwod - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    So 2H 2019 for 10nm, and they are not dumping 10nm, but moving 7nm in slightly earlier? Original Schedule was 4 years for 10nm? I give them 2 years for 10nm, that is still 2021 for 7nm, how is it "on track"

    Intel keep moving their own goal post they forgot whatever it was they set / said in the first place.
  • UkeNeverSeme - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    Hrmm this seems like those rumors about 10nm being canceled weren't entirely off after all. Also they will need to more than just catch up in process technology to beat AMD, since they're behind on architecture as well. Intel needs chiplets AS WELL as to get back on track with their process to beat AMD. Otherwise they will be stuck being "better for gamers", and since the money is in the data centre.... well that will suck.
  • HStewart - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    I think Intel will disclose more information on Dec 11th. It should be interesting.
  • RobinsonUK - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    Is Intel a big Anandtech advertiser or something? Why would you post this blatant attempt to spread uncertainty? Publishing Intel press releases now? Put "sponsored" at the top. You state Intel is "on track" but then don't say when they estimate its arrival. This leads me to believe they haven't got the first clue, which means it's going to be years.
  • stephenbrooks - Thursday, December 6, 2018 - link

    They are using EUV for --> 10-20 layers. <-- This is what I find most interesting about this announcement: they plan to do what appears to be a full conversion to EUV where other companies have proposed only converting a few of the smallest layers.
  • Valantar - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link

    A question: is ASML the _only_ company making step-and-scan machines for high-end chip production? If so, why on earth have they been allowed to monopolize this market, and why hasn't anyone stepped up to compete with them? I get that making machines like this is ridiculously complicated, but if the main reason is "ASML holds all the patents", it's about time that the relevant trade regulation body steps in and creates some room for competition in this space. It's clearly needed.
  • jjj - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link

    lol spinning non-news into good news.
    There was never an assumption that 7nm is delayed, that Intel doesn't practically skip first gen 10nm.
    7nm is 2021 soonest , nothing new, nothing unexpected and they likely get some delays to push it to 2022 soonest. The big question is if they use FF or GAA as other might leave FF behind by then.
  • pogostick - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link

    These comments.... I can't believe after all of these years how many people still take Intel talking points at face value.
  • Opencg - Sunday, December 9, 2018 - link

    Rumor that 10nm is completely scrapped continues to gain traction
  • eastcoast_pete - Monday, December 10, 2018 - link

    I actually hope that Intel does get their EUV going with good yields - open and honest competition is good for all of us.
    I also have my own theory why Intel is so behind its own schedule with 10 nm and following: you see, as Intel moves almost at light speed, their clocks run slower due to time dilation (: At least, that's one excuse they haven't tried, yet.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now