• 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.

[S|A] Broadwell supply a "trickle" until 2015

NTMBK said:
The original VR-zone story is, yes. The additional bit of info from Charlie about supply being a "trickle", no.
Click to expand...

With his track record I dont see why his comments makes any change. yet deserve a whole new thread for his rubbish.
 
The tick-tock clock is apparently seriously broken. I wonder what the state of business is like at Intel at the moment. I imagine there must be lots of panic meetings going on at the moment.

Also, based on the info in the OP I don't see why Intel doesn't skip Broadwell completely and just move ahead to Skylake. That is if the info proves to be correct that Skylake will be released on time according to original plan, and Intel does not intend to artificially push its release ahead.
 
The only thing that's a "trickle" is the dribbles of unconfirmable, unreliable information coming from S|A.

Clickbait on the hook.
 
Intel17 said:
If 14nm is this much of a struggle for Intel, then I can't imagine what 16 FF/14nm will be like for the rest of the industry.
Click to expand...

I hope they don't have any problems with 10nm. They could do a lot of damage by releasing 10nm before H2'16.
 
FWIW i'm posting research summary from a wall st firm that took Bill Holt and Jason Waxman around for two weeks to meet with investors....

1) Intel cost lead likely extends at 10nm – due to Intel’s “Inverse Optical Lithography” capability

a. Intel’s 14nm MPUs are 6 months behind schedule, making smaller transistors is a real challenge due to the delay in EUV lithography tools

b. To make the smaller transistor using DUV, they had to develop an “Inverse Optical Lithography” capability
i. This means they now have to use “diffracted” light to print transistors on wafers, instead of direct light
ii. The need to use diffracted light created an optical engineering challenge that “exploded” at Intel at 14nm
c. Intel has now developed this this “Inverse Optical Lithography” capability in house, it is a huge competitive advantage
d. TSMC and Samsung will run into this problem at 10nm, because their “10nm” features will be the same size as Intel’s “14nm” features
Bottom line: Intel will gain a transistor cost lead for the first time ever at 14nm, and will extend that at 10nm as TSMC and Samsung struggle to solve this Inverse Optical Lithography challenge

2) Low Power ARM Threat in Servers Appears Overstated
a. One consensus bear thesis on Intel is that ARM will disrupt Intel in Servers like it did to PCs
b. The argument goes like this: “Power costs for servers are high, so low power ARM is the solution…and Cloud players are moving to commodity servers, so that puts downward pressure on ASPs and margins for Intel”
c. Intel showed that Cloud plays (Google, Amazon, Facebook) were actually migrating up the MPU stack to higher end server MPUs
d. Intel server MPU ASPs have increased in 7 of the last 8 quarters, and from $450 to $600 over the past several years, even as Cloud plays have grown in size
e. The premise of the bear argument is misplaced. The issue is TCO (Total Cost of Ownership), or Performance/Watt/Dollar, not pure power, and Intel’s transistor cost leadership keeps them way ahead on this metric
Bottom Line: the data throws a harpoon into the side of the “Low Power ARM disrupts Intel in Servers” bear case

Other Tidbits:
1) Intel is making semi-custom server chips for high-volume customers, creating another barrier to ARM in servers
2) Intel views the Grantley server upgrade cycle as a 7-to-8 out of 10, with Nehalem being a 9/10 and Romley being a 5/10
3) Rockchip is an example of how Intel is getting more creative/aggressive in prosecuting the low-power tablet/mobile market
4) Don’t be surprised to see an announcement from Intel on a III-V compound materials advancement this year, that would put them another leg up on its competitors
5) The Public Cloud players (Google, Amazon, Facebook) are not cannibalizing Enterprise. At least 75% of their workloads are consumer based
a. Search
b. Social Media
c. Shopping
d. Games
 
liahos1 said:
FWIW i'm posting research summary from a wall st firm that took Bill Holt and Jason Waxman around for two weeks to meet with investors....

1) Intel cost lead likely extends at 10nm – due to Intel’s “Inverse Optical Lithography” capability

a. Intel’s 14nm MPUs are 6 months behind schedule, making smaller transistors is a real challenge due to the delay in EUV lithography tools

b. To make the smaller transistor using DUV, they had to develop an “Inverse Optical Lithography” capability
i. This means they now have to use “diffracted” light to print transistors on wafers, instead of direct light
ii. The need to use diffracted light created an optical engineering challenge that “exploded” at Intel at 14nm
c. Intel has now developed this this “Inverse Optical Lithography” capability in house, it is a huge competitive advantage
d. TSMC and Samsung will run into this problem at 10nm, because their “10nm” features will be the same size as Intel’s “14nm” features
Bottom line: Intel will gain a transistor cost lead for the first time ever at 14nm, and will extend that at 10nm as TSMC and Samsung struggle to solve this Inverse Optical Lithography challenge

2) Low Power ARM Threat in Servers Appears Overstated
a. One consensus bear thesis on Intel is that ARM will disrupt Intel in Servers like it did to PCs
b. The argument goes like this: “Power costs for servers are high, so low power ARM is the solution…and Cloud players are moving to commodity servers, so that puts downward pressure on ASPs and margins for Intel”
c. Intel showed that Cloud plays (Google, Amazon, Facebook) were actually migrating up the MPU stack to higher end server MPUs
d. Intel server MPU ASPs have increased in 7 of the last 8 quarters, and from $450 to $600 over the past several years, even as Cloud plays have grown in size
e. The premise of the bear argument is misplaced. The issue is TCO (Total Cost of Ownership), or Performance/Watt/Dollar, not pure power, and Intel’s transistor cost leadership keeps them way ahead on this metric
Bottom Line: the data throws a harpoon into the side of the “Low Power ARM disrupts Intel in Servers” bear case

Other Tidbits:
1) Intel is making semi-custom server chips for high-volume customers, creating another barrier to ARM in servers
2) Intel views the Grantley server upgrade cycle as a 7-to-8 out of 10, with Nehalem being a 9/10 and Romley being a 5/10
3) Rockchip is an example of how Intel is getting more creative/aggressive in prosecuting the low-power tablet/mobile market
4) Don’t be surprised to see an announcement from Intel on a III-V compound materials advancement this year, that would put them another leg up on its competitors
5) The Public Cloud players (Google, Amazon, Facebook) are not cannibalizing Enterprise. At least 75% of their workloads are consumer based
a. Search
b. Social Media
c. Shopping
d. Games
Click to expand...

sorry that quote might have been on a tangent and off topic to this thread. but I guess the point being that when they were on the road they soounded pretty bulled up on their 14nm ramp and were spending a lot of time talking about 10nm.

If 14nm was still an issue from a mfg perspective, would it make sense for panasonic to sign up at leading edge with intel vs working with tsm at 16nm? probably not? The supposed pushback of broadwell parts into 2015 makes sense right, because kzarnich stated that they would have broadwell parts on the shelves by holiday season and those parts were always likely to be for laptops etc.

what i find more distressing is there has been no trickle of information with regard to cherry trail. but intel has also kept broadwell details pretty tight lipped so who knows
 
The sad thing is that it will only get worse... :'(

Tick will be the one standing in the way of yearly cycle for Intel. Once the node have been changed, improving the architecture (Tock) will be easy compared to the challenges they will meet with smaller transistors.

I just hope, for the sake of gamers, that they use the time between each jump to properly make sure the CPU get more powerful. I don`t want another +5% IPC gain if it goes 2 years between. That will only hurt Intel in the long run.

Or does it?! Not if Mr Average Joe keep buying those Ultrabooks with the shiny IGP. Gamers are a minority compared to the sheeps that drink coffee at Starbucks while showing off their Apple notebook to the rest. If they want IGP`s, the development at Intel will mostly go toward the IGP race

:/
 
Intel is still on a 2 year schedule, which was both confirmed by Brian Krzanich's statement at Intel's Investor Meeting in November with the relentless pursuit of Moore's Law, the confirmation that 10nm will go into production in 2015, and the release of Skylake in Q2'15, exactly 2 years after Haswell.
 
witeken said:
Intel is still on a 2 year schedule, which was both confirmed by Brian Krzanich's statement at Intel's Investor Meeting in November with the relentless pursuit of Moore's Law, the confirmation that 10nm will go into production in 2015, and the release of Skylake in Q2'15, exactly 2 years after Haswell.
Click to expand...

But the thing is that the ticks and tocks will be released more or less at the same time (for Broadwell and Skylake). So they might as well just release a single new CPU generation every 2 years, improving both the node and the uArch at the same time.
 
witeken said:
Intel is still on a 2 year schedule, which was both confirmed by Brian Krzanich's statement at Intel's Investor Meeting in November with the relentless pursuit of Moore's Law, the confirmation that 10nm will go into production in 2015, and the release of Skylake in Q2'15, exactly 2 years after Haswell.
Click to expand...

Westmere launched in January 2010, Ivy Bridge in May 2012, Broadwell will be December 2014 if we're lucky. The two year cycle has slipped by almost a year.
 
witeken said:
Interesting, certainly that “Inverse Optical Lithography” thing, source?
Click to expand...

it was from a research report a wall st firm published 6/20. i can email the report to you if you pm me your email but i copied and pasted the summary.

summary is based on the conversations holt/waxman at intel had with investors during their 2 week tour in june.
 
Doesn't this timeline just confirm that Intel is focused on mobile (ultrabook/tablet) and not desktop? It would also seem to confirm the slide that suggested full launch for the Y series (Core-M) in October/November.
 
Yay for 4.5W CPUs....
Said touchpad users/makers.

The rest are just pissed off that we wont get the quads until Q2 2015. Which was suppose to come in Q1/Q2 2014. So they faced issues with manufacturing allright
 
I think the bottom line is that all the predictions that TSMC, et. al are going to catch up to intel are just that, predictions. Seems that those who think Intel is going to lose their process advantage are assuming the other suppliers will magically meet every timeline they have predicted without incurring any of the same problems intel has encountered. It is possible they will make a seamless transition exactly on schedule, but it seems like an unlikely scenario to me. OTOH, I think there is a very good possibility that Skylake will be delayed as well. So really, node shrinks are becoming so difficult at this level, it is really difficult to predict what is going to happen.
 
NTMBK said:
Westmere launched in January 2010, Ivy Bridge in May 2012, Broadwell will be December 2014 if we're lucky. The two year cycle has slipped by almost a year.
Click to expand...

And going back one more, 45nm was November 2007 (Wolfdale-DP). So they've gone from 22m, 26m, 28m, 29m best case scenario (if it's really October 2014 and not December)

The next one coming at a mere 18-20m is highly unlikely. Even if Intel could make up the difference somewhere in development time they'd still like some time to get a return Broadwell and Skylake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top