• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread

Page 648 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
IntelUser2000 said:
You have AMD's own marketing materials that have SMT off: https://www.amd.com/system/files/documents/amd-epyc-7Fx2-openfoam.pdf

This shows that in all applications tested, there are gains with lower core counts but not with higher ones: https://www.nas.nasa.gov/assets/nas/pdf/papers/NAS_Technical_Report_NAS-2015-05.pdf

You are talking about 6% gains in a specific scenario with most getting no gains or even lower with recommendations to disable SMT.
Click to expand...
Intel would never give AMD an advantage on OpenFoam by leaving their CPUs with HT On and AMD with SMT Off.

By who cares anyways. Sapphire Rapids have been delayed yet again and it will have to compete with Genoa.


biostud said:
Yup also here:
Intel Confirms Sapphire Rapids Xeon CPUs Have Been Delayed Once Again, Volume Ramp Pushed Back To Late 2022 (wccftech.com)
Click to expand...

Someone tells that woman that Intel 7 is Not the same as 7-nm process
 
Last edited:
nicalandia said:
Intel would never give AMD an advantage on OpenFoam by leaving their CPUs with HT On and AMD with SMT Off.
Click to expand...

Of course not. But it could benefit SPR few % by having HT on and benefit EPYC by having HT off.

They might have cherry picked the situation that benefits them most, but they don't always disadvantage it like that. Yes, sometimes they do, like the Kabylake-G comparison where they used single channel memory, but most of the time they don't, like when people were saying they gimped AMD by using single channel on the Ryzen vs Icelake mobile comparison when they said didn't and had dual channel on Ryzen as well.

Someone tells that woman that Intel 7 is Not the same as 7-nm process
Click to expand...

Potential similar density, and similar performance. TSMC is calling it 7nm right?
 

This article is from Wednesday, but I don't think it was shared here yet. Anyway Intel has a hiring freeze in the Client Group right now. Which is claimed to be only for two weeks but probably will be longer.

The relevant point is that somewhere else I saw a suggestion that PC sales are slumping to the point where Intel might warn at some point. And their Q2 forecast was for a decrease in revenue as it is. Probally not an AMD thing but a macro thing.
 
jpiniero said:

This article is from Wednesday, but I don't think it was shared here yet. Anyway Intel has a hiring freeze in the Client Group right now. Which is claimed to be only for two weeks but probably will be longer.

The relevant point is that somewhere else I saw a suggestion that PC sales are slumping to the point where Intel might warn at some point. And their Q2 forecast was for a decrease in revenue as it is. Probally not an AMD thing but a macro thing.
Click to expand...
It's worth noting that the actual silicon development falls under the Design Engineering Group.

Also, the original article: https://www.reuters.com/technology/intel-freezes-hiring-pc-chip-decision-least-two-weeks-2022-06-08/
 
DrMrLordX said:
1). TSMC hasn't used "nm" in their node names since 16nm/12nm
2). Intel had a 7hm process and renamed it to Intel 4

Anyone referring to Intel 7 as a "7nm process" is clearly in error.
Click to expand...

Semantics mostly, discussed and argued over and over again. Neither has any actual 7nm features in them and both can be called "7nm (marketing) class" processes.
What is important tho, is that Intel is back to being full node behind AMD.
 
JoeRambo said:
Semantics mostly, discussed and argued over and over again. Neither has any actual 7nm features in them and both can be called "7nm (marketing) class" processes.
What is important tho, is that Intel is back to being full node behind AMD.
Click to expand...
Polly pitch was the real nm number.. i judge a node by density and polly pitch
 
In theory, Intel must use EUV on M0 (and FEOL) only.
Other metal layer could be dealt with by SADP or single patterning.
This fact is very significant in yield / throughput.

Intel 4/3 & TSMC N3(N5?) combination might get back INTC's leadership.
I'm sure, IDM 2.0 is correct strategy.
 
lightisgood said:
In theory, Intel must use EUV on M0 (and FEOL) only.
Other metal layer could be dealt with by SADP or single patterning.
This fact is very significant in yield / throughput.

Intel 4/3 & TSMC N3(N5?) combination might get back INTC's leadership.
I'm sure, IDM 2.0 is correct strategy.
Click to expand...
Intel 4 has the highest density in the industry.. should be good for many years like 14nm
 
JoeRambo said:
Semantics mostly
Click to expand...

The problem here is that Intel's own engineers and marketing department were content to call the Intel 4 process "7nm" for quite some time. And the same engineers and marketing dept referred to Intel 7 as 10nm Enhanced SuperFin.

Even if we defer to Intel's own marketing, we can't call Intel 7 "7nm", because they clearly labeled it as a 10nm node with their own language.

Markfw said:
He loves Intel. Asking him to remove the blinders is like trying to move a rock.
Click to expand...

As long as he stays positive, a little cheerleading every now and then isn't terrible. Might be cringeworthy from time to time but, not really harmful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top