• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Intel 10 nm Process Increases Transistor Density by 2.7x Over 14 nm: Report

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
37,652 (8.51/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
Motherboard MSI B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC
Cooling AMD Wraith Prism
Memory 2x 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3000
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) Samsung U28D590 28-inch 4K UHD
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Recon3D PCIe
Power Supply Antec EarthWatts Pro Gold 750W
Mouse Razer Abyssus
Keyboard Microsoft Sidewinder X4
Software Windows 10 Pro
Intel's 10 nanometer FinFET silicon fabrication is coming together at a slower than expected rate, however when it does, it could vastly enlarge the canvas for the company's chip designers, according to a technical report by Tech Insights. The researchers removed the die of an Intel "Cannon Lake" Core i3-8121U processor inside a Lenovo Ideapad330, and put it under their electron microscope.

Its summary mentions quite a few juicy details of the 10 nm process. The biggest of these is the achievement of a 2.7-times increase in transistor density over the current 14 nm node, enabling Intel to cram up to 100.8 million transistors per square millimeter. A 127 mm² die with nothing but a sea of transistors, could have 12.8 billion transistors. Intel 10 nm node also utilizes third-generation FinFET technology, with a reduction in minimum gate pitch from 70 nm to 54 nm; and minimum metal pitch from 52 nm to 36 nm. 10 nm also sees Intel introduce metallization of cobalt in the bulk and anchor layers of the silicon substrate. Cobalt emerged as a good alternative to tungsten and copper as a contact material between layers, due to its lower resistance at smaller sizes,



View at TechPowerUp Main Site
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
2,624 (1.09/day)
Not to forget it's still MIA. As an aside if there's 14nm+++ incoming, I wonder how bad 10nm (yields) could really be?
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
13,791 (2.50/day)
I'm assuming Intel's 10nm is somewhat the same thing as GloFo (or TSMC?) 7nm given how things were in the past?
 

las

Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
773 (0.30/day)
Processor i9-9900K @ 5.2 GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z390 Extreme
Cooling Custom Water
Memory 32GB DDR4 4000/CL15
Video Card(s) 1080 Ti @ 2 GHz
Storage 970 Evo Plus 1TB + 64TB NAS
Display(s) Asus PG279Q 27" 1440p/IPS/165 Hz/Gsync + LG C7V 65" 2160p/OLED/HDR
Case Fractal Define Mini C
Audio Device(s) Asus Essence STX w/ Upgraded Op-Amps
Power Supply EVGA SuperNOVA 850 G2
Mouse Logitech G Pro Wireless
Keyboard Logitech G610 / MX Red + O Rings
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
Yes Intel 10nm = TSMC/GloFo 7nm

Intel 14nm is more advanced than GloFo 12nm (Ryzen refresh)

I expect Intel 10nm by late 18 or early 19. Intel might get in trouble if not ready for Zen 2 release. We have started seeing Intel small die 10nm chips, looks like progress
 
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
1,484 (0.67/day)
Location
Tokyo, Ota
Processor i5 - 7300HQ
Memory 8GB DDR4
Video Card(s) 1060 6GB
Storage 180GB m.2 SATA | 250GB 850Evo SATA
Display(s) FHD 15" Gsync IPS + Acer H243H
Mouse Rival 300 with Omron main switches.
Keyboard Apex m500 (mx red)
I'm assuming Intel's 10nm is somewhat the same thing as GloFo (or TSMC?) 7nm given how things were in the past?
From every piece of info I've seen, both GloFo and TSMC 7nm are slightly superior to Intel's 10nm.
But the thing is, when Intel releases mass produced 10nm products, it'll be on 10nm+ or some sort of evolution/optimization. So that one might be better than standard 7nm. Then again the competition will move to 7nm+ EUV or whatever it's gonna be. It's gonna go back and forth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: las

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
6,688 (4.08/day)
Processor Intel i5-6600k (AMD Ryzen5 3600 in a box, waiting for a mobo)
Motherboard ASRock Z170 Extreme7+
Cooling Arctic Cooling Freezer i11
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V (@3200)
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 3TB Seagate
Display(s) HP ZR24w
Case Raijintek Thetis
Audio Device(s) Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Software Arch Linux + Win10
Not to forget it's still MIA. As an aside if there's 14nm+++ incoming, I wonder how bad 10nm (yields) could really be?
It's not available in quantity, but you do realize this article is based on taking a 10nm die and putting it under the microscope.
Also, for all its troubles, if the end result is an almost 3x density, Intel will have quite the advantage over the competition once they fully flesh 10nm out. And I'm pretty sure at their next node, everybody else will need to figure out quad-patterning as well.
 

iO

Joined
Jul 18, 2012
Messages
395 (0.15/day)
Location
Germany
Processor R5 3600
Motherboard B450i Gaming
Cooling Accelero Mono CPU Edition
Memory 16 Gig VLP
Video Card(s) RX580 Armor w/ Accelero Mono
Storage 850 EVO 512
Display(s) LG 27UM67 UHD
Power Supply SS G-650
And yet this high density is what bit them in the 10nm arse so they went back to a scaling factor of 2.4x for 7nm.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
1,842 (1.81/day)
Processor i5-8400
Motherboard ASUS ROG STRIX Z370-I GAMING
Cooling Alpenföhn Black Ridge
Memory 2*16GB DDR4-3200 CL16
Video Card(s) Gainward GeForce RTX 2080 Phoenix
Storage 1TB Samsung 970 Pro, 2TB Intel 660p
Display(s) ASUS PG279Q, Eizo EV2736W
Case Dan Cases A4-SFX
Power Supply Corsair SF600
Mouse Logitech G700
Keyboard Corsair K60
And yet this high density is what bit them in the 10nm arse so they went back to a scaling factor of 2.4x for 7nm.
Scaling factor of 2.4x is still very-very aggressive. That one is likely to bite them in the ass again when the time comes. Probably in the form of long delays. Again.
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2016
Messages
1,041 (0.83/day)
Location
Pristina
System Name My PC
Processor 4670K@4.4GHz
Motherboard Gryphon Z87
Cooling CM 212
Memory 2x8GB+2x4GB @2400GHz
Video Card(s) XFX Radeon RX 580 GTS Black Edition 1425MHz OC+, 8GB
Storage Intel 530 SSD 480GB + Intel 510 SSD 120GB + 2x500GB hdd raid 1
Display(s) HP envy 32 1440p
Case CM Mastercase 5
Audio Device(s) Sbz ZXR
Power Supply Antec 620W
Mouse G502
Keyboard G910
Software Win 10 pro
Now just cut down prices 2.7x and here we go..
 

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
6,688 (4.08/day)
Processor Intel i5-6600k (AMD Ryzen5 3600 in a box, waiting for a mobo)
Motherboard ASRock Z170 Extreme7+
Cooling Arctic Cooling Freezer i11
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V (@3200)
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 3TB Seagate
Display(s) HP ZR24w
Case Raijintek Thetis
Audio Device(s) Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Software Arch Linux + Win10
Now just cut down prices 2.7x and here we go..
Unfortunately, after all these woes, price cuts are rather (highly?) unlikely. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong, though ;)
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
2,624 (1.09/day)
It's not available in quantity, but you do realize this article is based on taking a 10nm die and putting it under the microscope.
Also, for all its troubles, if the end result is an almost 3x density, Intel will have quite the advantage over the competition once they fully flesh 10nm out. And I'm pretty sure at their next node, everybody else will need to figure out quad-patterning as well.
Yes & according to Intel own estimates 14nm++ is still better than 10nm or 10nm+ (marginally with the latter) so in terms of process characteristics (performance) ICL is going to fall short wrt best of CFL.

In short density isn't everything, in fact when you're packing billions of transistors it's best to look elsewhere for other advantages wrt competition in GF & TSMC.
 
Last edited:

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
6,688 (4.08/day)
Processor Intel i5-6600k (AMD Ryzen5 3600 in a box, waiting for a mobo)
Motherboard ASRock Z170 Extreme7+
Cooling Arctic Cooling Freezer i11
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V (@3200)
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 3TB Seagate
Display(s) HP ZR24w
Case Raijintek Thetis
Audio Device(s) Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Software Arch Linux + Win10
The first graph show transistor performance. If the transistor performance is only slightly lower, but you can have almost 3x as many transistors, I'd say the resulting chip has a good chance at being faster.

Fwiw, that graph also says14nm++ is leaps and bounds faster than plain 14nm. But we all know the resulting CPUs aren't.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
2,624 (1.09/day)
The first graph show transistor performance. If the transistor performance is only slightly lower, but you can have almost 3x as many transistors, I'd say the resulting chip has a good chance at being faster.

Fwiw, that graph also says14nm++ is leaps and bounds faster than plain 14nm. But we all know the resulting CPUs aren't.
The problem with such high density is that in real world your chips will not be able to clock super high, like CFL, because even if 14nm++ is way better than 14nm or 14nm+ it wasn't designed to clock up to 5GHz (base clock) for 6 or more cores. So while ICL would improve over CFL, the upper limit as far as clock speed, including realistic overclocks, should be interesting to say the least.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
1,842 (1.81/day)
Processor i5-8400
Motherboard ASUS ROG STRIX Z370-I GAMING
Cooling Alpenföhn Black Ridge
Memory 2*16GB DDR4-3200 CL16
Video Card(s) Gainward GeForce RTX 2080 Phoenix
Storage 1TB Samsung 970 Pro, 2TB Intel 660p
Display(s) ASUS PG279Q, Eizo EV2736W
Case Dan Cases A4-SFX
Power Supply Corsair SF600
Mouse Logitech G700
Keyboard Corsair K60
I wonder what the "Higher Performance" in these slides refers to. Slight increases in both density and clocks?
Intel's 14nm as a process probable maxes out at around 5 GHz for the frequency. At reasonable voltage/power consumption, that is. And this does not seem to depend on the size at all.

At the same time, both density and lower power are what drives everyone including Intel to smaller node.
 

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
6,688 (4.08/day)
Processor Intel i5-6600k (AMD Ryzen5 3600 in a box, waiting for a mobo)
Motherboard ASRock Z170 Extreme7+
Cooling Arctic Cooling Freezer i11
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V (@3200)
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 3TB Seagate
Display(s) HP ZR24w
Case Raijintek Thetis
Audio Device(s) Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Software Arch Linux + Win10
The problem with such high density is that in real world your chips will not be able to clock super high, like CFL, because even if 14nm++ is way better than 14nm or 14nm+ it wasn't designed to clock up to 5GHz (base clock) for 6 or more cores. So while ICL would improve over CFL, the upper limit as far as clock speed, including realistic overclocks, should be interesting to say the least.
Which is why instead of trying to predict performance. I'm just waiting to see the chips. Probably won't upgrade anyway, so I'm super chill about it :D
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
2,624 (1.09/day)
Which is why instead of trying to predict performance. I'm just waiting to see the chips. Probably won't upgrade anyway, so I'm super chill about it :D
Hence my assumption that Intel's in a lot of trouble, I wonder if gamers will give up their 5~5.5GHz OC water cooled CFL for a 5~10% reduction in clock speeds at 10nm?
Anyway the point is 10nm is turning out to be a bigger can of worms than what Intel could've ever imagined, even in their worst nightmares.
 

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
6,688 (4.08/day)
Processor Intel i5-6600k (AMD Ryzen5 3600 in a box, waiting for a mobo)
Motherboard ASRock Z170 Extreme7+
Cooling Arctic Cooling Freezer i11
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V (@3200)
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 3TB Seagate
Display(s) HP ZR24w
Case Raijintek Thetis
Audio Device(s) Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Software Arch Linux + Win10
Hence my assumption that Intel's in a lot of trouble, I wonder if gamers will give up their 5~5.5GHz OC water cooled CFL for a 5~10% reduction in clock speeds at 10nm?
Ice Lake is supposed to be a new architecture, direct clocks comparison might not apply.
 

ppn

Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
530 (0.34/day)
How does this CPU prove the concept of 10nm with. 127 sq.mm and is only Dual_core. FFS Intel 6-Core is 149 sq.mm.

If anything I would expect 6-Core on 10nm to be shrinked to 50 sq.mm. not Dualcore to be 127.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
1,842 (1.81/day)
Processor i5-8400
Motherboard ASUS ROG STRIX Z370-I GAMING
Cooling Alpenföhn Black Ridge
Memory 2*16GB DDR4-3200 CL16
Video Card(s) Gainward GeForce RTX 2080 Phoenix
Storage 1TB Samsung 970 Pro, 2TB Intel 660p
Display(s) ASUS PG279Q, Eizo EV2736W
Case Dan Cases A4-SFX
Power Supply Corsair SF600
Mouse Logitech G700
Keyboard Corsair K60
How does this CPU prove the concept of 10nm with. 127 sq.mm and is only Dual_core. FFS Intel 6-Core is 149 sq.mm.
If anything I would expect 6-Core on 10nm to be shrinked to 50 sq.mm. not Dualcore to be 127.
The small Cannon Lake we have seen should be ~70 mm² and that includes a 40 EU iGPU.
For comparison, the same 2 cores along with 24 EU iGPU in Kaby Lake are 127 mm² at 14 nm process.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
2,624 (1.09/day)
How does this CPU prove the concept of 10nm with. 127 sq.mm and is only Dual_core. FFS Intel 6-Core is 149 sq.mm.

If anything I would expect 6-Core on 10nm to be shrinked to 50 sq.mm. not Dualcore to be 127.
A lot of the stuff on a chip doesn't scale down like the actual cores with a node shrink, lots of uncore elements IIRC.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
4,555 (4.37/day)
System Name Good enough
Processor AMD Ryzen R7 1700X - 4.0 Ghz / 1.350V
Motherboard ASRock B450M Pro4
Cooling Scythe Katana 4 - 3x 120mm case fans
Memory 16GB - Corsair Vengeance LPX
Video Card(s) OEM Dell GTX 1080
Storage 1x Samsung 850 EVO 250GB , 1x Samsung 860 EVO 500GB
Display(s) 4K Samsung TV
Case Zalman R1
Power Supply 500W
Scaling factor of 2.4x is still very-very aggressive.
Is it though ? Somehow Samsung , TSMC and GloFo all have managed to achieve higher density and significantly better yields than Intel as of now. It's not that the node shrink was too aggressive , they bit off more than what they could chew. You simply cannot beat companies that dedicate all their cash to R&D and new plants anymore.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
1,842 (1.81/day)
Processor i5-8400
Motherboard ASUS ROG STRIX Z370-I GAMING
Cooling Alpenföhn Black Ridge
Memory 2*16GB DDR4-3200 CL16
Video Card(s) Gainward GeForce RTX 2080 Phoenix
Storage 1TB Samsung 970 Pro, 2TB Intel 660p
Display(s) ASUS PG279Q, Eizo EV2736W
Case Dan Cases A4-SFX
Power Supply Corsair SF600
Mouse Logitech G700
Keyboard Corsair K60
Is it though ? Somehow Samsung , TSMC and GloFo all have managed to achieve higher density and significantly better yields than Intel as of now. It's not that the node shrink was too aggressive , they bit off more than what they could chew. You simply cannot beat companies that dedicate all their cash to R&D and new plants anymore.
Samsung, TSMC and GloFo are all doing smaller steps. 14 > 12/10 > 7. Intel went 14 > 10.
Granted, GloFo seems to be planning to skip 7 nm and go straight to 5 nm but we will see how this goes.

At this point, TSMC and GloFo actually seem to be having slightly lower transistor density at respective 7 nm processes than Intel at 10 nm. Samsung has a bit better but their 7 nm is at about the same stage where Intel is with 10 nm. We don't know much about yields beyond the fact that TSMC is doing volume production which we can assume means OK yields.

Production process is the foundation of entire Intel business, not just CPUs. We can safely say Intel is putting everything it can into making their 10 nm process work to stay competitive.
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
1,668 (0.80/day)
Samsung, TSMC and GloFo are all doing smaller steps. 14 > 12/10 > 7. Intel went 14 > 10.
Granted, GloFo seems to be planning to skip 7 nm and go straight to 5 nm but we will see how this goes.

At this point, TSMC and GloFo actually seem to be having slightly lower transistor density at respective 7 nm processes than Intel at 10 nm. Samsung has a bit better but their 7 nm is at about the same stage where Intel is with 10 nm. We don't know much about yields beyond the fact that TSMC is doing volume production which we can assume means OK yields.

Production process is the foundation of entire Intel business, not just CPUs. We can safely say Intel is putting everything it can into making their 10 nm process work to stay competitive.
Well GloFo skipped "10nm" and went straight trough the "7nm". There is a rumor they might skip the "5nm" as well and go straight do the "3nm".
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2017
Messages
30 (0.04/day)
"100.8 million transistors per square millimeter"

jesus, can you imagine that. Some of the simpler chips (remember, Pentium III had 9.5 million transistors) can be manufactured in submilimeter sizes.
 
Top