Intel Expands 10nm Manufacturing Capacity

[AusWolf]

I have to say how funny it is, that pro Intel posts in this thread focus more on AMD, than those of supposed fanboys.
Meanwhile ignoring the elephant in the room that is, THE RISE of ARM.
Will you address the point? The industry moving away from Intel's x86, with advanced semiconductor foundries (TSMC/Samsung) to facilitate the transition or will you continue to focus on AMD.

As long as there is no ARM processor that you can go out and buy right now, I would not give much credit to ARM on the desktop market. I'm not saying that this can't change in the future, but such an elusive future is not something worthy of discussion in my opinion.

 

[z1n0x]

As long as there is no ARM processor that you can go out and buy right now, I would not give much credit to ARM on the desktop market. I'm not saying that this can't change in the future, but such an elusive future is not something worthy of discussion in my opinion.

You focus on Desktop, a market much less important than mobile and HPC. Apple's M1, AWS Graviton, Fujitsu A64FX, ARM Neoverse, Nvidia empowering ARM (if the deal is approved by regulators).
The point is that Intel is no longer in hegemonic position, and the industry dependency on them is decreasing rather quickly.
There're viable (some even say superior) processor alternative with ARM and competitive manufacturing with TSMC / Samsung.

edit: forgot Qualcomm/Microsoft push for Windows on ARM.
edit 2: in this case by mobile i ment laptops, of course x86 and phones is a nonsubject.
.

 

[AusWolf]

You focus on Desktop, a market much less important than mobile and HPC. Apple's M1, AWS Graviton, Fujitsu A64FX, ARM Neoverse, Nvidia empowering ARM (if the deal is approved by regulators).
The point is that Intel is no longer in hegemonic position, and the industry dependency on them is decreasing rather quickly.
There're viable (some even say superior) processor alternative with ARM and competitive manufacturing with TSMC / Samsung.

edit: forgot Qualcomm/Microsoft push for Windows on ARM.

I do not think the industry is moving away from x86 on mobile platforms, as x86 has never even had a real foothold there. Ever since the first smartphones, Apple, ARM and Qualcomm ruled the market, then Samsung joined in with their custom ARM designs. Intel tried to make a presence with some Atom chips but failed.

I focus on desktop, because that's where Intel has been the dominant leader in the past decade. Even that position seems to be shaking with the fast evolution of the Ryzen generations. That's why I think that expanding manufacturing capacity on their 10/14 nm nodes is much rather an attempt to gain market presence short term than a solution to a problem, which is lack of innovation.

The mobile segment is a totally different story.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I have to say how funny it is, that pro Intel posts in this thread focus more on AMD, than those of supposed fanboys.
Meanwhile ignoring the elephant in the room that is, THE RISE of ARM.
Will you address the point? The industry moving away from Intel's x86, with advanced semiconductor foundries (TSMC/Samsung) to facilitate the transition or will you continue to focus on AMD.

ARM is largely irrelevant for Windows users right now, and in my experience it would take a really significant performance disparity for hardware to drive software. This is the thing people on these sites don't get, hardware is not really the driver unless it is revolutionary. M1 is good, but not revolutionary.

For myself as example, there's no choice. The tools I use simply aren't there in the Mac ecosystem. In my case I'm talking about things you probably haven't heard of, FactoryTalk Studio, RSLinx, RSLogix. For others, MatLab, IIS, SQL Server, and so on. The software I run on my PC is worth literally 30X what my PC cost. That's not abnormal.

I am not saying there isn't a hardware performance delta where people would start switching, there is. I hyar don't think there is anywhere near enough of that disparity at this point. I think it would need at least 50% and really 100%+.

If you look at the example below, a 4+4 M1 vs the latest 4C TGL-H (35W) which will be the closest x86 competitor, the single core scores are not that much different. Yes the M1 is much better on power usage, but it is also on 5nm TSMC vs the 10nm Intel (Equivalent to 7nm TSMC).

It would also need to be more than just thin-and-light laptop space with max 16GB RAM. That memory number is pretty much useless to me, there's a reason I have 32GB and it's called VMWare and Hyper-V.

Theoretically a 6 core 35-45W TGL-H should hit north of 8000 on multi-core, which would best the M1. The single core scores are less than 7% apart. That would be a more fair comparison 6C vs 4+4.

This is not the type of thing that would drive people to switch operating systems, software, and so on.

There's also an entire ecosystem built around x86. AMD and Intel sell chips. Apple sells computers.

Point being, you probably won't see this <-- link from an Apple partner anytime soon. You're not going to see CAT scanners or MRI scanners using Apple chips, you won't see self-driving cars or trucks (Intel is big into this), nor industrial controllers, nor 5G routing controllers (again, Intel is there).

You'll just see Apple MacOS laptops and desktops. Apple would need to significantly expand the use cases for the M1 line and allow new types of integrations and uses from 3rd parties.

I don't see that happening.

 

[JohnWal]

How much is 14nm and how much is 10nm. What is the 10nm yield rate? Sure I can put out a press release saying I've added more capacity to hide the lack of progress on saleable 10nm silicon...The rubber will meet the road with Sapphire Rapids which will need 10nm yield on high core count silicon. That is the signal that Intel has 10nm under control when they can meet wide customer demand for large dies and not just ship for revenue.

 

[Vya Domus]

they are still bigger than Amd will ever dream of being, and will get their shit together, then we will see what happens.

Dude, wake up to reality, I think you're letting your inner fanboy talk to much. Or maybe you own some Intel stock and all this makes you angry ?

I already said this but let me reiterate it : AMD is worth almost 80 billion more compared to the beginning of the year, Intel is worth roughly 50 billion less. You're opinion that they are still bigger than AMD will ever dream of being is actually laughable.

Intel has shown not only that they can't get their shit together with their new foundries but they didn't even have the incentive to do so. They kept actively prioritizing 14nm capacity more and more when they clearly should have slowly phase it out and introduce some 10nm volume. They chose short term profit at the expense of everything to do with the future and investors finally woke up, hence the 50 billon dollars less bit I mentioned above.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Did you guess the numbers? intel is worth almost 2 times what amd is. irrelevant of your fact that intel has lost $80bn. the numbers are in $bn btw. what makes you think i am angry? another wrong supposition. its more like 60 gain, not 80

 

[RandallFlagg]

Hmmm...

 

[Vya Domus]

intel is worth almost 2 times what amd is. irrelevant of your fact that intel has lost $80bn

You couldn't even read my comment properly, nice. See, I said you're angry about something. I clearly said that Intel lost 50 billion in value not 80, genius.

But anyway, it’s irrelevant that they lost 50 billion but the fact that they are still worth twice as much somehow isn’t ?

Yeah, right. You’re delusional dude. Only keyboard warriors such as yourself think Intel has a chance to ever take the node advantage again, everyone else doesn't and their drop in market value shows that. And their track record isn't great either, their success always seems to have relied one way or another on making their competitors fail rather than making better products and people have caught onto that as well.

 

[AusWolf]

Did you guess the numbers? intel is worth almost 2 times what amd is. irrelevant of your fact that intel has lost $80bn. the numbers are in $bn btw. what makes you think i am angry? another wrong supposition. its more like 60 gain, not 80

View attachment 181195View attachment 181196

It does not change the fact that AMD is rapidly gaining market share, while Intel is in a slow decline at the moment. The point is: things change. Intel might completely lose the desktop CPU market. They might also come up with something revolutionary to be on top again. We don't know. The opening article about Intel ramping up 10 and 14 nm production makes me believe they've given up. It looks like they want to sell as much of their current stuff as they can, and move on.

There's no need to deny the fact that markets and their participants change. Just look at Via, S3, Matrox and 3DFX for example. No one ever thought they would leave the gaming desktop market when they were big. I for one, was dreaming about being able to afford a 3DFX graphics card one day. Then came nvidia...

 

[Ahhzz]

Find the original topic, and stick to it.

 

[goodeedidid]

Management OK'd this, go figure. They're headless chickens at this point, drowning in their own nonsense.

Pretty sure Intel management knows better than you.

You couldn't even read my comment properly, nice. See, I said you're angry about something. I clearly said that Intel lost 50 billion in value not 80, genius.

But anyway, it’s irrelevant that they lost 50 billion but the fact that they are still worth twice as much somehow isn’t ?

Yeah, right. You’re delusional dude. Only keyboard warriors such as yourself think Intel has a chance to ever take the node advantage again, everyone else doesn't and their drop in market value shows that. And their track record isn't great either, their success always seems to have relied one way or another on making their competitors fail rather than making better products and people have caught onto that as well.

Your comment doesn't really mean anything. It's just blabla no facts no nothing.

 

[saki630]

no one cares about the nanometer's in their processors for the past few years considering everything has been good for awhile. The only thing we all can agree on as PCmasterRace is that we need Nvidia to release 3080's for the masses.

For the next two years 14nm intels are still going to be good unless you need 30+ cores/threads from AMD to generate all the polygons for your hentai tits. I might need it.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

You mean that one time they were behind? Did we forget what they did when they were behind? Oh yea, they blackmailed all the big OEM's into collusion, remember that one?

Unless you are stating that intel is doing that today, this would be considered a red herring argument.

And this isnt the first time Intel has been behind. On both the 386 and 486 platforms AMD chips offered better gaming performance at a lower price, and on the P5 socket 7 AMD's OG K6 offered 300mhz chips to intels 233 mhz. Both times Intel responded with the P5 and PII, respectively.

Never write off intel, remember AMD were ahead of them a couple of times in the past, but they came back hard, sure this time its taking them much longer to get themselves together, giving AMD much more time to thrive, but when they do, AMD has gained so much that they can drop as much as they want into R&D to counter that, fueling competition even more, and in the end the consumers benefits the most !

Erm, not so sure on that one. The Williamette pentium IV launched in november of 2000. It would take until july of 2006 before Intel finally moved away from Sukburst. That's five and a half years. The first Zen chips launched in march of 2017, so we're still not at the 4 year mark for all of zen, and arguably ryzen 2000 was the first that had a distinct advantage over intel, as ryzen 1000 had many performance pitfalls and some stability issues regarding memory speed. Intel still has, what, another 15-18 months before hitting Failburst's epic of woe. If (STRONG IF) rocketlake delivers on the 10-12% IPC gain over comet lake, intel would take back the gaming crown, and we'd be back to the dynamic we had between ryzen 3000 and intel 9000, where intel was for high refresh rate gaming and zen for much everything else.

If you don't see how Intel is losing ground from all directions, you are not paying attention.
TSMC leading the semiconductor foundry race, Samsung getting better with Nvidia and Qualcomm on board.
The rise of ARM. Apple, Qualcomm, AWS, Nvidia's deal, Microsoft, Windows on ARM, Neoverse, A64FX, Nuvia.
The rebirth of AMD.
When was the last time (if ever) Intel's empire was under such onslaught?
Probably, i'm missing other "threat vectors".

Again, netburst. Intel was way behind AMD in both power use and performance. PPC 970 was coming along nicely, and the apple G4s slammed netburst to the curb in perf/w. There were thoughts that PPC might continue to make enough headroom to take more from intel and x86 in general. We all know how that ended.

 

[Vayra86]

Pretty sure Intel management knows better than you.



Your comment doesn't really mean anything. It's just blabla no facts no nothing.

Yours is a much more valuable contribution to this topic, clearly! Solid argumentation, too.

 

[AusWolf]

There you go, people. Stop arguing!

 

[goodeedidid]

Yours is a much more valuable contribution to this topic, clearly! Solid argumentation, too.

Arguing with somebody who makes up nonsense is a lost cause a waste of time sorry to say. I give him back his own poison.