intel delays 14nm?-process problems

Discussion in 'CPUs and Overclocking' started by piesquared, Nov 10, 2012.

  1. piesquared

    piesquared Golden Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,179
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. nforce4max

    nforce4max Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eventually they're going to hit more and more problems with every shrink and development cycles will get longer. With each cycle it will get more and more costly for Intel to make each new generational step. It will drive costs of their products higher while AMD is failing due to the constrains and complications that come from using SOI.
     
  3. mrmt

    mrmt Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,976
    Likes Received:
    0
    The process introduction was just delayed in Ireland, this has nothing to do with the health of the process.
     
  4. ShintaiDK

    ShintaiDK Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    20,060
    Likes Received:
    7
    Intel got atleast 3 14nm fabs. And Fab42 is an entirely new plant with only 14nm.

    Ireland was also the last announced.

    Thats one view. Another could be they cant get enough tools ready. 14nm is one of the fastest conversions.

    I assume piesquared also think 32nm was in deep trouble.

    [​IMG]

    Sorry there piesquared. AMD just aint gonna return.
     
    #4 ShintaiDK, Nov 10, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2012
  5. piesquared

    piesquared Golden Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,179
    Likes Received:
    0
    No offense, but these explanations seem more plausible,

    http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4400932/Qualcomm-overtakes-Intel-as-most-valued-chip-company
     
  6. nforce4max

    nforce4max Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    I still want single atom transistors even though there has been functional examples since the 1990s (Ti and several government labs) that were developed as proof on concept.
     
  7. mrmt

    mrmt Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,976
    Likes Received:
    0
    Really? First 14nm chips weren't due 2013 but 2014. Second why aren't we seeing the same movements in the US fabs, just in Ireland? Third, where did the author got that 2 billion number? 2 billion is a small fraction of the new 14nm fabs, the investment is far bigger than 2 billion.

    I remember reading the same thing about Intel 22nm, but what we saw in the end was the fastest process ramp up in Intel history.
     
  8. ShintaiDK

    ShintaiDK Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    20,060
    Likes Received:
    7
    Note he is quoting a random comment user. One that writes alot like what piesquared dreams about ;)

    But again, who ever took this guy serious.
     
  9. Idontcare

    Idontcare Elite Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 1999
    Messages:
    21,130
    Likes Received:
    0
    More plausible? That is called confirmation bias.

    You are scouring the internet looking for little more than anonymous comments posted at the end of unrelated articles in hopes of finding something that supports your preferred world view.

     
  10. piesquared

    piesquared Golden Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,179
    Likes Received:
    0
    You know what they say about assumptions..

    In accuality, I read the thread at the xtremesystems link which is where I read the quotes.
     
  11. piesquared

    piesquared Golden Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,179
    Likes Received:
    0
    What's taking me serious have to do with somebody else's comment??*twirlingfingerontemple*
     
  12. CHADBOGA

    CHADBOGA Golden Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,423
    Likes Received:
    3
    From the comments you have quoted attached to that link, is also the following:

    Just how seriously are we meant to take anonymous comments on some website?
     
  13. Ferzerp

    Ferzerp Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 1999
    Messages:
    6,107
    Likes Received:
    1
    IDC, I vote that you forcibly make this picture this guy's avatar image.

    [​IMG]
     
  14. jpiniero

    jpiniero Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    4
    Yeah this is totally about demand. Could be a sign they are pessimistic about Airmont's ability to drive smartphone sales.
     
  15. bononos

    bononos Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2011
    Messages:
    3,191
    Likes Received:
    1
    The great equalizer indeed (OP's comment).
     
  16. BD231

    BD231 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2001
    Messages:
    9,754
    Likes Received:
    0
    What reason does intel have to switch to 14nm when they have zero competition and their current parts will remain competitive for years to come. Zero.
     
  17. boxleitnerb

    boxleitnerb Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. Intel has the obligation to their investors and shareholders to make money. You don't make money if you don't sell products. And you don't sell products if they don't advance. They could stick with 22nm and just make the chips larger. Oh wait...margins going down the toilet (relatively speaking).
     
  18. cytg111

    cytg111 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,177
    Likes Received:
    6
    its friggin insane this talk about competition, sales and demand blablabla .. there must be, atleast, a billion factors involved in maximizing profits, wich intel, of course, is all about.
    If intel has no competition, they will, of course, fill a performance segment with their product before they introduce a new one (or sales declines to a level where the cost benefit ... is not beneficial). It is not friggin hard to understand, Intel is not evil, do'er of all good or anything in between, its a friggin company that specializes in profit. Wtf dudes.
     
  19. BD231

    BD231 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2001
    Messages:
    9,754
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh ok so what you're telling me is Intel doesn't release a " new product " on the same process anymore /ignore

    Are you done?

    That was completely unnecessary.
    -ViRGE
     
    #19 BD231, Nov 11, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2012
  20. boxleitnerb

    boxleitnerb Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    0
    [redacted]
    I didn't say that at all. Obviously they will still stand by their tick-tock model which means two product lines for each process node. But what you said sounded like Intel could stick with 22nm for much longer, way beyond Broadwell. I explained to you why that won't be the case.
     
    #20 boxleitnerb, Nov 11, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2012
  21. Sable

    Sable Golden Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,056
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]
     
  22. Lonbjerg

    Lonbjerg Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    4,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Google: stockholders

    The value of your post: Zero
     
  23. StrangerGuy

    StrangerGuy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,156
    Likes Received:
    1
    Welcome to peak silicon!
     
  24. KompuKare

    KompuKare Senior member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well not quiet yet but Intel will eventually have to took-took-tick or worse. A shrink every two years cannot be sustained forever.

    The other thing is that their die sizes have been going down (4 core):
    Nehalem 296 mm² (Wiki lists the same area for Clarksfield & Lynnfield)
    Sandy Bridge 216 mm²
    Ivy Bridge 133 mm2
    so assuming that their wafers stay the same (unsure when 450mm is due), that means the number of chips they can supply per plant has risen (assuming the processes required at 14nm for instance don't require more steps or steps which are more time consuming).

    So they must have calculated that at least at the beginning of 14nm ramp-up they do not need Leixlip. 22nm>14nm is a full node,isn't it? Therefore if they had the same amount of fabs on 14nm and were able to do process the same amount of wafers they would be able to supply twice the amount of transistors and unless they blow all that transistor budget on new features, even Intel may not be able to generate that amount of additional volume.
     
  25. piesquared

    piesquared Golden Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,179
    Likes Received:
    0
    Besides stockholders to answer to, there is also the ARM stampede to battle. Using that tired old meme of intel not have any competition to explain intelss execution problemss has gotten ridiculous.