Wednesday, July 17th 2019

Intel's CEO Blames 10 nm Delay on being "Too Aggressive"

During Fortune's Brainstorm Tech conference in Aspen, Colorado, Intel's CEO Bob Swan took stage and talked about the company, about where Intel is now and where they are headed in the future and how the company plans to evolve. Particular focus was put on how Intel became "data centric" from "PC centric," and the struggles it encountered.

However, when asked about the demise of Moore's Law, Swan detailed the aggressiveness that they approached the challenge with. Instead of the regular two times improvement in transistor density every two years, Swan said that Intel has always targeted better and greater densities so that it would stay the leader in the business.
With 10 nm, Intel targets improved density by as much as 2.7x compared to the last generation of 14 nm transistors. He addressed the five year delay in delivering the 10 nm node being caused by "too aggressive innovation," adding that "... at a time it gets harder and harder, we set more aggressive goal..." and that's the main reason for the late delivery. Additionally he said that this time, Intel will stay at exactly 2x density improvements over two years with the company's 7 nm node, which is supposed to launch in two years and is already in development.

When talking about the future of Intel, Swan has noted that Intel's current market share is 30% of the "silicon market", saying that Intel is trying to diversify its current offerings from mainly CPUs and FPGAs to everything that requires big compute performance, in order to capture rest of the market. He noted that Artificial Intelligence is currently driving big demand for such performance, with autonomous vehicles expected to be a big source of revenue for Intel in the future. Through acquisitions like Mobileye, Intel plans to serve that market and increase the company's value.

You can listen to the talk here.
Add your own comment

111 Comments on Intel's CEO Blames 10 nm Delay on being "Too Aggressive"

#101
bug
lexluthermiester, post: 4084634, member: 134537"
Interesting notion. Some of us will never use the cloud because we don't like/accept the concept. Many others literally can't use the cloud because of a lack of internet speed. We are a VERY long way from the cloud being the mainstay/default form of computing..
Keep telling yourself that. Once businesses figured out the cloud = lots of data to harvest for free, this is what they'll do. Whether you like it or use it is inconsequential. It's like DLC and microtransactions ;)
Posted on Reply
#102
efikkan
The "cloud" is not a matter of figuring out. There are latency issues involved which can't be eliminated, and video compression will limit the usefulness of high details. It will never be relevant for fast-paced gaming, only certain types of games can work "well" with streaming.

But let's move this discussion somewhere else, this thread is about CPUs.
Posted on Reply
#103
lexluthermiester
bug, post: 4084668, member: 157434"
Once businesses figured out the cloud = lots of data to harvest for free, this is what they'll do.
Not if no one will use it or flat out refuse too..
bug, post: 4084668, member: 157434"
It's like DLC and microtransactions ;)
Yeah I don't use that crap either.

efikkan, post: 4084669, member: 150226"
There are latency issues involved which can't be eliminated, and video compression will limit the usefulness of high details. It will never be relevant for fast-paced gaming, only certain types of games can work "well" with streaming.
This, exactly... And...
efikkan, post: 4084669, member: 150226"
But let's move this discussion somewhere else, this thread is about CPUs.
...This. You're right, we're off topic. Shutting up...

There is now this to continue this topic...
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/how-do-you-feel-about-cloud-computing.257564/
Posted on Reply
#105
DeathtoGnomes
Gungar, post: 4085362, member: 163163"
AMD is 10 years late and they managed to catch up that's all, pathetic company since forever.
ok. I'll bite, why are they pathetic?

No Idea why I'm asking a schill such a question, this isn't the first time Intel pointed fingers or made excuses.
Posted on Reply
#106
Gungar
DeathtoGnomes, post: 4085443, member: 151150"
ok. I'll bite, why are they pathetic?

No Idea why I'm asking a schill such a question, this isn't the first time Intel pointed fingers or made excuses.
We are talking about companies that need to do research and development constantly, i am just saying its not because they haven't any new product with 30% performance every year that's they are on a beach drinking cocktails. And i hate when people bring AMD the company that barely manage to catch the competition after sooooo long as an excuse that Intel is doing nothing.
Posted on Reply
#107
lexluthermiester
Gungar, post: 4085533, member: 163163"
We are talking about companies that need to do research and development constantly, i am just saying its not because they haven't any new product with 30% performance every year that's they are on a beach drinking cocktails. And i hate when people bring AMD the company that barely manage to catch the competition after sooooo long as an excuse that Intel is doing nothing.
Yup, see my above comment..
Posted on Reply
#108
svan71
Who does he blame for all the vunerabilities and patched performance loss?
Posted on Reply
#109
EarthDog
svan71, post: 4098409, member: 152013"
Who does he blame for all the vunerabilities and patched performance loss?
LOL, cute... but not to place to tro.....dicuss it.
Posted on Reply
#110
seronx
I'm still anticipating Intel's Netburst 2: Electric Boogaloo.
Posted on Reply
#111
lexluthermiester
svan71, post: 4098409, member: 152013"
Who does he blame for all the vulnerabilities and patched performance loss?
While that's a good and valid question...
EarthDog, post: 4098412, member: 79836"
LOL, cute... but not to place to tro.....dicuss it.
...Earthdog is right, this is not the right thread to discuss it.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment