It's half-broken. They have some 10nm parts out, albeit mobile. This wouldn't be an issue if 10nm were based on a new µarch and they could lend a 40-60% IPC increase at those reported clocks which would obviously put it in line with a new architecture, and one we haven't seen in close to 20 years. The rest of your post is explaining stuff I know already or repeating stuff already said. I sold all my Intel shares nearly a year ago. I already knew how bad 7nm was.
It' worth looking at those 10nm parts. We have
- Cannon Lake. (Oh dear, let's forget that right way).
- Ice Lake. Slightly coooler than 14nm+++Lake, but mainly ~same peak performance
- Lakefield. Woohoo, competing strongly against a mid-range Qualcomm chip
This is not a power lineup. But that's not the point, the more important point is the qualifiers.
The biggest Ice Lake that ships is 4 cores, die size of 122mm^2. If the process is yielding great, why were no desktops at say 6 or 8 core ever released?
Why was Lakefield crippled with just one SC core rather than two?
And Ice Lake is being followed up not by a desktop part, but by Tiger Lake, another mobile quad core part.
Look at this pattern. Everything suggests that they are having yield problems! They're limiting themselves to the smallest parts they can get away with shipping while still matching AMD (sometimes to absurd lengths, as with single core SC on Lakefield). They apparently have no interest in moving the desktop to 10nm. Ice Lake SP has slipped from "1st half of 2020" to "Q3 2020" to (a few days ago) "late 2020" with language vague enough that it's probably early 2021.
It's hard to look at this and conclude "10nm is yielding great, can handle large dies, and is ready to be scaled up across the product line.
www.intc.com
Facebook
Twitter