• 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 672 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
IntelUser2000 said:
Wonder if this has anything to do with hubris of the manufacturing team, being on leadership position for over a decade. Now they will have to compete on merit as their own product team might want to use external manufacturing.
Click to expand...
Supposedly they actually commissioned a study comparing Intel vs TSMC/Samsung processes. They queried both an external consultant as well as their internal design teams, and both agreed that it took a staggering amount more effort to design on Intel processes, with the internal team even rating them worse than the consulting company. Supposedly this is something they actually improved on a great deal with 4/3 and especially 20A/18A, but I guess the proof will be from IFS customers.
 
nicalandia said:
He might have confused "Manufacturing Ready" H2 2022

View attachment 64286

But it has become apparent that it will not be Ready for Manufacturing until 2023


Edit.

Also a good article on Alder Lake’s Caching and Power Efficiency,

chipsandcheese.com

Alder Lake’s Caching and Power Efficiency

Processor caches are known to improve performance, but they also significantly influence power efficiency.
chipsandcheese.com chipsandcheese.com

Interesting how Gracemont Core's L2 is on the opposite side of the L3(I noticed that long ago but never made a comment on it)

View attachment 64288
Click to expand...

Had it become clear it the production stepping won’t be ready by December?
 
Last edited:
Markfw said:
So far he has called like 3 or 4 different members, liars, including me for pointing out the obvious, Intel being late on promises. I will just wait until he gives up, or too many members point out his flaws for him to keep being in denial.

Probably won't happen.
Click to expand...

You’re an angry guy. You respond to Intel announcements and actual timelines with denials, MLID rumors, and personal attacks. You post ridiculous performance/watt comparisons (Alder lake perf/watt 1/4 Zen 3). Childish stuff.
 
Last edited:
pakotlar said:
Had it become clear it the production stepping won’t be ready by December?
Click to expand...
If the rumors are true(Intel CEO flying to Taiwan to ask TSMC for leniency because TSMC is scheduled to be full production on SOC tiles while Intel struggles with the Compute tile on Intel4). Then yeah..
 
nicalandia said:
If the rumors are true(Intel CEO flying to Taiwan to ask TSMC for leniency because TSMC is scheduled to be full production on SOC tiles while Intel struggles with the Compute tile on Intel4). Then yeah..
Click to expand...
That's not the rumor though. The rumor is that Intel faces financial penalties for missing their production window with TSMC, and is trying to negotiate a way out.
 
Exist50 said:
That's not the rumor though. The rumor is that Intel faces financial penalties for missing their production window with TSMC, and is trying to negotiate a way out.
Click to expand...

Negotiating a way out means cancelling Meteor Lake entirely. I don't know Intel wants to do that, although obviously with no CPU tile they don't have a product to sell.
 
nicalandia said:
Isn't that some form of "Leniency"? Trying to negotiate a way out without.
Click to expand...
Sure, but it's leniency regarding Intel missing their commitment to TSMC, not them needing TSMC because of Intel 4 troubles. That simply wasn't a part of the rumor. Taking it all at face value, of course.
 
Exist50 said:
Supposedly they actually commissioned a study comparing Intel vs TSMC/Samsung processes. They queried both an external consultant as well as their internal design teams, and both agreed that it took a staggering amount more effort to design on Intel processes, with the internal team even rating them worse than the consulting company. Supposedly this is something they actually improved on a great deal with 4/3 and especially 20A/18A, but I guess the proof will be from IFS customers.
Click to expand...

Yea so because the problems were deeper, even if Intel came with 10nm in 2016 and 7 nm in 2018-2019, Apple and others still wouldn't have used their processes and it would have delayed the inevitable - needing sweeping management changes and falling behind competition.

Mass production is the name of the game so if it's harder to design when we're already at very diminishing returns and harder at the process level as well saying your transistors are better is one step forward, one step back.

nicalandia said:
But it has become apparent that it will not be Ready for Manufacturing until 2023
Click to expand...

Intel 4 might be manufacturing ready in 2022 but that doesn't mean that's when the product is ready. Also even with stellar execution it still takes a quarter or so to ramp, and get it to customers.
 
Last edited:
IntelUser2000 said:
I don't think Apple would have ever used Intel foundry even if 10nm went as exactly as they planned. It wasn't that their process characteristics was bad that they had no foundry customers, it was that their process and the way it worked wasn't conducive to external manufacturing at all. If you want to be successful in any area, you make sure to appease the particular customer base. Up until the IDM 2.0 announcement, their fab efforts still only revolved around their needs.
Click to expand...


Intel would not have been able to supply the volume of wafers Apple required even if things had gone well and Apple ran into no roadblocks dealing with Intel's design tools (since back then you had to use theirs) They had shortage on and off at 14nm for a couple years before 10nm was originally supposed to arrive simply from making modems for Apple.

Imagine if Intel had made a similar deal basically guaranteeing Apple all the wafers they needed for their SoCs. Since Intel could sell wafers of x86 chips for more money than they could sell Axx wafers to Apple, they'd have lost billions on that deal. The only way a deal like that pays off for them is if they have excess capacity (whether due to poor forecasting or because they built more capacity expecting to get foundry customers) If it displaces any x86 wafers, Intel loses.

They could have never taken on a customer Apple's size. Even with their new nodes, they are unlikely have enough EUV scanners to handle all their own needs (hence TSMC making some of their CPUs) let alone Apple's. They would need several years working with smaller customers before they were ready to tackle a really big customer, and would have to have the capacity guaranteed to be in place.
 
Doug S said:
Even with their new nodes, they are unlikely have enough EUV scanners to handle all their own needs
Click to expand...

Allegedly that's because they either cancelled or didn't pursue EUV orders, presumably because they were hesitating as to whether to continue with 7 nm, knowing that if that flopped they'd be out tens of billions of dollars. Then they got the bright idea to try to get the Government to pay for it.
 
jpiniero said:
Allegedly that's because they either cancelled or didn't pursue EUV orders, presumably because they were hesitating as to whether to continue with 7 nm, knowing that if that flopped they'd be out tens of billions of dollars. Then they got the bright idea to try to get the Government to pay for it.
Click to expand...

My theory at the time Intel's TSMC orders were announced (and soon after a rumor sourced from Digitimes or similar was making the rounds so I'm thinking I was right) was that to get the large TSMC order they had to offer some of their pending ASML orders to TSMC (both because it was necessary to expand their capacity and as partial payment of something worth more to TSMC than the equivalent amount of money)

That type of arrangement would be a win/win for both at the time, though comes at a cost down the road in terms of Intel's capacity on EUV nodes.
 
pakotlar said:
Yes, it does. Their roadmap has been consistent, and as we get closer to release, they reiterate those timeframes, suggesting either they are confident in them or are deceiving shareholders. It is not the latter. The evidence to the contrary is MLID, a far less reliable source.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen it myself, but I know someone that works at Lenovo and according to what they say from their perspective it has been anything but consistent. So please don't make up nonsense.
 
Doug S said:
Intel would not have been able to supply the volume of wafers Apple required even if things had gone well and Apple ran into no roadblocks dealing with Intel's design tools (since back then you had to use theirs) They had shortage on and off at 14nm for a couple years before 10nm was originally supposed to arrive simply from making modems for Apple.
Click to expand...

What you are saying is "difficult" compared to "no chance" which is what I am implying. If we look at things that's going on at Intel right now, it would have made little difference in the long run even if 10nm and after that went swimmingly. Actually in the long term they might have worsened the scenario because the success of 10/7 would have further bolstered their erroneous resolve.

10nm fiasco wasn't the reason for Intel's failure rather the result of problems that have been brewing for some time. An Intel led by management with stellar execution and vision wouldn't have needed to worry about these things in the first place. Shrink offered by relentless execution of Moore's Law leads naturally into not just better performance but ever smaller devices as well.

Their chips should have been a natural fit for Smartphones and Tablets, waiting for the right manufacturer to use it. Medfield was the first chip that showed such a promise - too bad it took them so long. If it came out just 2 years earlier they'd have been a leading contender fiercely competing with Qualcomm.

Instead, they were mucking with MID efforts which while commendable was hampered by the very fact that 3-chip solution made idle power of the Atom platform no better than Core. They made so little progress in that regard that it created people who were absolutely adamant it was entirely due to the ISA.

You can see their "revolutions" such as Pentium M and Core were all reactive, not pro-active the former which is indicative of a follower and latter of a leader.

Such problems are caused by bureaucratic levels and top-level decisions that look little beyond short term revenue gain.

Unfortunately such alternate reality might be a fantasy of my own since history shows that nearly all, if not all large organizations(government being the ultimate example) fall into such traps.
 
Last edited:
eek2121 said:
Raptor lake Geekbench drop:

ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser

Benchmark results for an ASUS System Product Name with an Intel Core i9-13900K processor.
browser.geekbench.com

Result isn’t valid, but it appears the clockspeed rumors may have been correct.
Click to expand...

Stock 5950x for comparison: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/compare/15949494?baseline=15909424

With PBO results are ~16,500-17,000 for multi, same 1700 for single core. IIRC my air cooled 5950x with PBO tuned, and -20 to -30 curve optimizer, on air (NH-D15) gets around 1700/17,000.

If this were representative of the average benchmark result it would be enough to beat 7950x, though I’m guessing things will be much closer than this on MT, with PPW advantage for 7950x of course. Still, a nice improvement for Intel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top