Monday, October 30th 2017

Intel 10 nm CPUs to See Very Limited Initial Launch in 2017

UPDATE: Some slides have surfaced today on Reddit that actually place Intel's updated 10 nm roadmap as starting initial risk production in 2Q 2018. The same leaks also point towards a yearly advancement in process technology (akin to Intel's current 14 nm+ and 14 nm++ production processes), with 10 nm+ risk production on 1Q 2019 and 10 nm++ on 1Q 2020. This roadmap, however, is relative to Intel's Custom Foundry partners; as such, this doesn't go directly against Intel CEO's Brian Kzarnich remarks on the latest investor call, since he was likely talking about the 10 nm ramp-up on Intel's own products.

Intel CEO Brian Krzanich has come out to say that the company's first 10 nm CPUs based on the "Cannon Lake" micro-architecture will see the light of day before this year's end. Intel has been having a slew of ramp-up delays with its 10 nm products, which prompted a slippage from an expected 2016, full-scale launch (whose ship has sailed, clearly) towards a timed, product-tier based strategy. Intel opted to first introduce 10 nm technology to FPGA accelerators, which due to their redundancy, would suffer less from yield issues.
Intel are "on track to ship our first low-volume 10-nanometer part by the end of the year," Intel CEO Brian Krzanich said in the latest investor call. "That will be followed by the initial ramp in the first half of 2018, with both high volume and system availability in the second half of 2018."Source: Liliputing
Add your own comment

39 Comments on Intel 10 nm CPUs to See Very Limited Initial Launch in 2017

#1
Hugh Mungus
And when will there be 6-core mobile? Would go well with a 1070 max-q hopefully. Then I would have an amzing pc for editing,streaming and recording and a laptop for gaming, mobile editing, streaming, recording and even just general ultrabook stuff.
Posted on Reply
#2
repman244
Hugh Mungus said:
And when will there be 6-core mobile? Would go well with a 1070 max-q hopefully. Then I would have an amzing pc for editing,streaming and recording and a laptop for gaming, mobile editing, streaming, recording and even just general ultrabook stuff.
When AMD makes them :D
Posted on Reply
#3
Durvelle27
A
repman244 said:
When AMD makes them :D
AMD already launched 6 core and 8 core mobile CPUs (Full Ryzen)
Posted on Reply
#4
repman244
AFAIK they only launched 4 core APU parts and even those are LP versions (15W).
Posted on Reply
#7
Durvelle27
cucker tarlson said:
Well that clearly doesn't count as mobile.

7700K 4.5GHz 91W is a desktop part
7700HQ 3.8GHz 45W is a mobile part
It's mobile because it's in a portable device

It's like saying a tablet in't mobile because it has a Full blown i7
Posted on Reply
#8
xorbe
We're talking about the mobile cpu sku. Just because they wedge a desktop part into a luggable gaming laptop doesn't transform the cpu into the mobile equivalent.
Posted on Reply
#9
Durvelle27
xorbe said:
We're talking about the mobile cpu sku. Just because they wedge a desktop part into a luggable gaming laptop doesn't transform the cpu into the mobile equivalent.
It's still mobile
Posted on Reply
#10
xorbe
Yes you are perfectly right it is mobile in function, similar to how I can lug my PC case around. But it's not in the manuf's designated mobile line-up for cpus.
Posted on Reply
#11
Hugh Mungus
xorbe said:
Yes you are perfectly right it is mobile in function, similar to how I can lug my PC case around. But it's not in the manuf's designated mobile line-up for cpus.
And although awesome, it's paired with a mobile 580 4gb and has terrible batterylife in everything. Mobile ryzen 6-core+, mobile coffee lake 6-core or a generic quadcore for me.
Posted on Reply
#12
cucker tarlson
Durvelle27 said:
It's mobile because it's in a portable device

It's like saying a tablet in't mobile because it has a Full blown i7
Cramming a desktop part in a mobile device does not make it a mobile part. I can't believe one does not get this.
Posted on Reply
#13
ratirt
xorbe said:
Yes you are perfectly right it is mobile in function, similar to how I can lug my PC case around. But it's not in the manuf's designated mobile line-up for cpus.
It's a laptop so it is mobile no matter what's in there. What you are talking about is low power energy efficient laptop's. CPU's don't determine if a laptop is mobile or not it's the laptop itself. Of course the desktop CPU's may not be the best solution for laptops cause of their's TDP but Ryzen's are pretty goodin that department.

BTW. If a CPU doesn't have MOBILE written on the box doesn't mean it can't be used in a mobile market and do good. Higher DTP but also more power.
Posted on Reply
#14
xorbe
I can only conclude posters are being purposefully obtuse. I excuse myself from the circle of failure.
Posted on Reply
#15
Vya Domus
xorbe said:
We're talking about the mobile cpu sku. Just because they wedge a desktop part into a luggable gaming laptop doesn't transform the cpu into the mobile equivalent.
Is there a standard that differentiates mobile from desktop parts ? Pretty sure there isn't one. If you , however , are aware of one please tell us. Whether or not these companies chose to signify that these are mobile parts through some sort of naming scheme is totally redundant. The level of portability is even less relevant , surely you've seen throughout the years laptops containing CPUs labeled as "mobile" that range from Macbook thin to full-on "luggage case" levels of bulkiness.

But hey let's get stuck at this meaningless semantic BS , it sure is constructive.
Posted on Reply
#17
JackOne
It doesn't matter if it's mobile or not. Ryzen is extremely efficient, more than Intel's stuff, so the comparison with Intel is moot as well. Ever saw a Ryzen 6 or 8 core clocked very low and how much power it needs then? I guess not. Hint: it's suitable for Notebooks. Ryzen is made for highest efficiency, being best on low clocks. Therefore "normal" Ryzen is very well suited for mobile. Saw how much 16 core Ryzen does consume compared to Intel's outdated/inefficient stuff with only 10 cores? It consumes even less despite way higher performance and core count. And yet you try to compare Ryzen with Intel's stuff.

That said, nobody said it's suitable for a Ultra book or very mobile laptop, but it's easily suitable for desktop replacement or normal laptops. Who is using laptops on high performance without charging it anyway? You maybe do that, but not for many hours. And if you charge it, it can even run on high clocks, doesn't matter too much then. But there's no 1800X anyway (in the mentioned one), it's a R7 1700, those have 65W TDP compared to 95W of the former.

Does Intel even have a 8 core on 65W TDP? The answer is no. Intel simply isn't able to pull that off, hence a waste of time comparing Ryzen with 7th gen stuff or higher from Intel.
Posted on Reply
#18
EarthDog
The Skylake mobile segment consists of the Y, U, HK, and HQ lines from a 6920/6970 4c/8t to a 3855U 2c/2t. The difference between them are the wattage packages. That first chip is 35W. Some of the high-end Clevo/Sagar etc units shoehorn desktop processors in there. But there is a delineation in segments from both AMD and Intel. :)
Posted on Reply
#20
cucker tarlson
JackOne said:
It doesn't matter if it's mobile or not. Ryzen is extremely efficient, more than Intel's stuff, so the comparison with Intel is moot as well. Ever saw a Ryzen 6 or 8 core clocked very low and how much power it needs then? I guess not. Hint: it's suitable for Notebooks. Ryzen is made for highest efficiency, being best on low clocks. Therefore "normal" Ryzen is very well suited for mobile. Saw how much 16 core Ryzen does consume compared to Intel's outdated/inefficient stuff with only 10 cores? It consumes even less despite way higher performance and core count. And yet you try to compare Ryzen with Intel's stuff.

That said, nobody said it's suitable for a Ultra book or very mobile laptop, but it's easily suitable for desktop replacement or normal laptops. Who is using laptops on high performance without charging it anyway? You maybe do that, but not for many hours. And if you charge it, it can even run on high clocks, doesn't matter too much then. But there's no 1800X anyway (in the mentioned one), it's a R7 1700, those have 65W TDP compared to 95W of the former.

Does Intel even have a 8 core on 65W TDP? The answer is no. Intel simply isn't able to pull that off, hence a waste of time comparing Ryzen with 7th gen stuff or higher from Intel.
I'm gonna crap my pants laughing, take it down a notch big,serious boy :rolleyes:
R7 1700 is nowhere near 65W processors in real life. AMD is claiming 65W TDP but their marketing has been known to be misleading since launch. R7 1700 is 65W, 6900K is 140W. In OCCT there's 20W between them, now look which company has a more honest approach. Ryzens don't have better efficiency than Intel's Skylake/Kablylake, at that comes from lower clockspeed. Look at 1300X at 3.5GHz pulling 10W more than 7600K at 3.8GHz.

Seriously, did you really believe AMD when they said they have a 65W 8c/16t chip to compete with Intel's 140W stuff :laugh:

Posted on Reply
#21
TheGuruStud
cucker tarlson said:
I'm laughing out loud at 65W. R7 1700 is nowhere near 65W processors in real life. AMD is claiming 65W TDP but their marketing has been known to be misleading since launch. R7 1700 is 65W, 6900K is 140W. In OCCT there's 20W between them, now look which company has a more honest approach. Ryzens don't have better efficiency than Intel's Skylake/Kablylake, at that comes from lower clockspeed.
Those are completely fabricated numbers. You should be ashamed and banned.

The 1700 doesn't even use that much in TOTAL SYSTEM power draw when encoding or other media duties.
Even prime95 small FFTs results in 82 watts (which is of course not a realistic work load). The 1700 uses less power than the 7700K.

Go cuddle mommy, but even she doesn't love you.
Posted on Reply
#22
cucker tarlson
TheGuruStud said:
Those are completely fabricated numbers. You should be ashamed and banned.

The 1700 doesn't even use that much in TOTAL SYSTEM power draw when encoding or other media duties.
Even prime95 small FFTs results in 82 watts (which is of course not a realistic work load). The 1700 uses less power than the 7700K.

Go cuddle mommy, but even she doesn't love you.
I'd rather stick to facts instead.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_1700_review,7.html


I suggest you do that too.
Posted on Reply
#23
xorbe
Is there a standard that differentiates mobile from desktop parts ? Pretty sure there isn't one. If you , however , are aware of one please tell us.
info given w/link
JackOne said:
It doesn't matter
Precisely the reply I expected, lol.
Posted on Reply
#24
StrayKAT
Well, I'm envious of Ryzen's efficiency, personally (as a 7700k owner). But I don't see why you guys have to be so rude to each other. It's a just thread on CPUs. :D
Posted on Reply
#25
TheGuruStud
StrayKAT said:
Well, I'm envious of Ryzen's efficiency, personally (as a 7700k owner). But I don't see why you guys have to be so rude to each other. It's a just thread on CPUs. :D
That's how you treat degenerates.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment