Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I thought Intel doesn't believe in bench marks!
Hey, wha happen?!
A 3rd player literally means nothing in such an extreme sellers' market. If they have an equivalent product, they can price just as high and it will fly off shelves. There is ZERO incentive for them to price lower when people gobble up literally everything off the shelf like a swarm of locusts.Having a third player is not a bad thing.
Maybe it'll keep the other two on their toes and add a level of competition to drive cost back to some sense of normalcy.
Lord knows it has gotten out of hand in recent years.
A damn 1660 GPU should not cost 300 'anything'...and yet I'm seeing them in the $400 range.
That's just crazy.
That's certainly one way of looking at it.A 3rd player literally means nothing in such an extreme sellers' market. If they have an equivalent product, they can price just as high and it will fly off shelves. There is ZERO incentive for them to price lower when people gobble up literally everything off the shelf like a swarm of locusts.
In a normal market, sure. They really wouldn't have to compete with market share right now if they have a well reviewed product at comparable prices to the competition. People AREN'T being picky atm. They're buying 3060s for $500 lol. They're so desperate for any hardware, they'd gladly scoop up 1st gen Intel hardware for near the same price if the performance was there.That's certainly one way of looking at it.
Another is.... If I want my company to gain market-share and a foothold into a segment I have never played in, I am going to flood the consumer.
If I have a massive budget and the capability to manufacture my own chips and am looking for long-term investment, then I want my GPUs in everybody's hands.
I'll offer a comparable product at a better cost.
The hope....(much like car sales) is that the consumer will be a repeat buyer of each generation.
My emphasis will be on giving the best product and customer service.
Price can increase later when I am established and have taken a bite out of the other two players.
Does that selling technique...less the big budget, C/S and P/S sound familiar?
Re: AMD.
If 7nm is the problem and intel has that problem, how would intel's FABs help that bottleneck?Without a doubt. Unless Intel manages some in house miracles the problem in general right now for everyone seems to be the lack of 7nm and beyond fabs. As much as TMSC can handle, everyone from phones to cars and space rockets want new chips..... and there just isn't enough production.
A few months ago I would have said the long term solution is chiplets to drive up yields and allow controllers to be fabbed on less then processes... but even AMD is having issues with Ryzen supply right now. It seems like TMSC is just slammed.
As much as I really expect Intels fab business to eventually fail hard and get spun off.... we really could use Intel fabs turning out GPUs.
That's the other issue. More competition don't mean jack if they all share the same resource bottleneck.If 7nm is the problem and intel has that problem, how would intel's FABs help that bottleneck?
Intel used to be the monopoly problem, but you now have another de facto monopoly in the supply chain - TMSC. Issue is everyone wants the best.
To Nvidias credit... they gave Samsung a shot. Can't argue with the chips the NV GPUs seem solid.... production is probably better then we think with the increased demand on GPUs the last year.If 7nm is the problem and intel has that problem, how would intel's FABs help that bottleneck?
Intel used to be the monopoly problem, but you now have another de facto monopoly in the supply chain - TMSC. Issue is everyone wants the best.
Don't forget Hector Ruinez... That guy screwed AMD hard.how? they know what they're doing and how it's done..?! it's supply and demand. there is high demand, how risky could it be. it's not like the "chip market" is gonna see a slow down anytime soon.
nah i think their aquisition of ATI along with their performance of Phenom falling behind core2duo and then shortly after the core i7 series along w/ Nvidia punishing them is what put them in the position to sell their fab.
man if they could start fabbing their own chips again their profits would soar and would give them more R&D money to keep it going and keep competing w/ intel. If it takes a few yrs to get going, SO WHAT?
You guys are literally living IN the 2nd chip drought of the decade but saying we don't need another fab? ok?
Ironically, TSMC's 7nm is less dense than Intel's 10nm.If 7nm is the problem and intel has that problem, how would intel's FABs help that bottleneck?
Intel used to be the monopoly problem, but you now have another de facto monopoly in the supply chain - TMSC. Issue is everyone wants the best.
Was going to say. Intel has been shipping 10nm for a couple years, now. Just not on the -S high-powered desktop parts people on this forum want.I laughed than thought, “that can’t be right!” But looks like Intel has been shipping Ice Lake on 10nm since 2019, and Tiger lake in 2020. Intel plans to have their 4’th 10nm Fab operational and in full production by April. Granted that is for the laptop ranges, but they are holding their own against AMD in those departments while costing about the same and having drastically better availability.
Is that still the case? I know that was true with how Intel initially planned 10nm, but my understanding was that they relaxed density targets twice due to the defect rate, so is that still the case?Ironically, TSMC's 7nm is less dense than Intel's 10nm.
TSMC N7FF 97.5Is that still the case? I know that was true with how Intel initially planned 10nm, but my understanding was that they relaxed density targets twice due to the defect rate, so is that still the case?
Actual numbers I've seen for Intel's 10nm were between 96 and 102 MTr/mm². TSMC's original 7nm was 91 MTr/mm², but I know they have made some improvements since then. They are probably similar to each other in density today.Is that still the case? I know that was true with how Intel initially planned 10nm, but my understanding was that they relaxed density targets twice due to the defect rate, so is that still the case?
Problem is Intel has admitted to backing up 10nm density but they have never released exact specs on what they have relaxed to get it to work. But the higher up fab folks at Intel have all suggested they had to back up their initial target densities to get yields that where not complete shit. Of course all those people have been fired since. The truth is I'm not anyone sure outside of Intel really knows at this point how dense their current 10nm stuff. It probably doesn't matter much anyway.... lets be honest Intel is basically sticking to 14 till they have their 7 ready to go. Which is probably very close to TMSCs process. The Intel marketing propaganda of their 10nm being > then 7 has really caught hold. Their plans was aggressive for sure... but they never really got it to work and they backtracked a lot of those design decisions to get it half working.Actual numbers I've seen for Intel's 10nm were between 96 and 102 MTr/mm². TSMC's original 7nm was 91 MTr/mm², but I know they have made some improvements since then. They are probably similar to each other in density today.
Intel’s 10nm has been weighed in at 100.8, falling ahead of TSMC’s N7FF but behind their N7FF+ process. Intel ended up changing the shape of the transistors and their layout. They were originally trying to deploy 10nm with their lateral nanowire transistors but never made that work at 10nm but it will resurface later as gate all around probably in the 3-5nm range. But instead of this they found a way to reduce the number of dummy gates between the transistors and remove remove the air gap between them.Problem is Intel has admitted to backing up 10nm density but they have never released exact specs on what they have relaxed to get it to work. But the higher up fab folks at Intel have all suggested they had to back up their initial target densities to get yields that where not complete shit. Of course all those people have been fired since. The truth is I'm not anyone sure outside of Intel really knows at this point how dense their current 10nm stuff. It probably doesn't matter much anyway.... lets be honest Intel is basically sticking to 14 till they have their 7 ready to go. Which is probably very close to TMSCs process. The Intel marketing propaganda of their 10nm being > then 7 has really caught hold. Their plans was aggressive for sure... but they never really got it to work and they backtracked a lot of those design decisions to get it half working.
That's fair... I would suggest the ways they found don't really work however. I mean their yields at 10nm are still too crap to build their best parts at 10. Perhaps those air gaps where a good way to ensure you didn't have a prohibitively high defect rate... which is the main issue Intel is having. They can make 10nm work but it seems the defect rates are higher a lot higher. Perhaps its a simple probability issue they should have considered.... high density sounds great and all but it drastically increased the number of defects that hit actual important bits rather then air gaps.Intel’s 10nm has been weighed in at 100.8, falling ahead of TSMC’s N7FF but behind their N7FF+ process. Intel ended up changing the shape of the transistors and their layout. They were originally trying to deploy 10nm with their lateral nanowire transistors but never made that work at 10nm but it will resurface later as gate all around probably in the 3-5nm range. But instead of this they found a way to reduce the number of dummy gates between the transistors and remove remove the air gap between them.
I don’t know much about their yields, but all their 10’th and 11’th gen mobile parts have been at 10nm so they are getting them out in quantity. From my understanding it’s been more of an issue of power scaling, their parts have been having issues when subjected to lighter power targets beyond the 45-65w found in laptops, which could be a yield issue, unknown. But this year we do get the first 10nm Desktop, HEDT, and Server parts so we’ll know more in a few months.That's fair... I would suggest the ways they found don't really work however. I mean their yields at 10nm are still too crap to build their best parts at 10. Perhaps those air gaps where a good way to ensure you didn't have a prohibitively high defect rate... which is the main issue Intel is having. They can make 10nm work but it seems the defect rates are higher a lot higher. Perhaps its a simple probability issue they should have considered.... high density sounds great and all but it drastically increased the number of defects that hit actual important bits rather then air gaps.
That is a good point... I assume yield. Your point is valid though it could be more about power budgets and leakage with the removal of the gaps as you say. In any event its not the wonder node Intel expected it to be... I do really hope they get their own 7 up and running soon. Intel needs to be able to produce at 7 for Intel GPUs to really help with supply issues in the market. And if there going to actually compete with AMD in the high end down the road. It looks like their last 14nm chips will perhaps win some single thread crowns... but that doesn't mean much if there getting lapped (not even an exaggeration) in multi core by AMD chips with twice the cores.I don’t know much about their yields, but all their 10’th and 11’th gen mobile parts have been at 10nm so they are getting them out in quantity. From my understanding it’s been more of an issue of power scaling, their parts have been having issues when subjected to lighter power targets beyond the 45-65w found in laptops, which could be a yield issue, unknown. But this year we do get the first 10nm Desktop, HEDT, and Server parts so we’ll know more in a few months.
From their internals 7nm is “on-track” and the DoE dropped their lawsuit, or at least back it off so that must mean Intel is back on making the required progress in their supercomputer. The yields are probably absolutely garbage though.That is a good point... I assume yield. Your point is valid though it could be more about power budgets and leakage with the removal of the gaps as you say. In any event its not the wonder node Intel expected it to be... I do really hope they get their own 7 up and running soon. Intel needs to be able to produce at 7 for Intel GPUs to really help with supply issues in the market. And if there going to actually compete with AMD in the high end down the road. It looks like their last 14nm chips will perhaps win some single thread crowns... but that doesn't mean much if there getting lapped (not even an exaggeration) in multi core by AMD chips with twice the cores.
Perhaps clearing out all the FAB leadership last year was for the best... I really hope so as much as I rag on Intel. It does worry me though that the new CEO as much as I was hoping for an actual engineer to head things... was there previous CTO who actually oversaw all those perhaps in retrospect insane aggressive fab plans. And his first few public statements on the matter sound more like him doubling down then admitting they Fd up.
Someone sawed through a couple of Intel and TSMC chips a while back and put up pictures. Shouldn't be any harder than that was to do it again. Take the cheapest Tiger Lake laptop CPU and a 5600X and do the same, maybe right through the middle of the ALU and right through the L3 cache. 5600Xs are relatively easy to find recently (Micro Center Houston has listed "25+" in stock for weeks, for example.)The truth is I'm not anyone sure outside of Intel really knows at this point how dense their current 10nm stuff.
If AMD announced that they were building their own fabs, I would sell my stock the same hour. I invested after they got out of the fab business, and it was one of the best investments I’ve made. Go look up the returns AMD after the split and tell me if it was a good move. Then tell me if you would want AMD to start their own fabs again.how? they know what they're doing and how it's done..?! it's supply and demand. there is high demand, how risky could it be. it's not like the "chip market" is gonna see a slow down anytime soon.
nah i think their aquisition of ATI along with their performance of Phenom falling behind core2duo and then shortly after the core i7 series along w/ Nvidia punishing them is what put them in the position to sell their fab.
man if they could start fabbing their own chips again their profits would soar and would give them more R&D money to keep it going and keep competing w/ intel. If it takes a few yrs to get going, SO WHAT?
You guys are literally living IN the 2nd chip drought of the decade but saying we don't need another fab? ok?
I remember the 1999 Taiwan Earthquakes caused a massive problem with memory shortage.FWIW I don't wish Intel ill-will on any of this. For one thing, the US needs a leading-edge foundry, having all of the world's advanced foundries in Taiwan is bad news. And competition is good. Just Intel hasn't delivered in a while, so I will believe it when they start to ship it.