I should have said 'low initial volume' wrt to the next iPhone. As I said, I'm sure TSMC is pushing as hard as humanely possible to get yields up. Apple won't move to another foundry over one problematic node. They have too good of a relationship with TSMC to make such a drastic change right now, IMHO. If it happens again - well, all bets are off.
Yep 0% chance that Apple launches with a "more limited supply" due to their own SoC, when they work so closely with TSMC they help define each new process. They would know far in advance if there are any problems, and would be able to retarget their process. Heck, its possible they might have a dual track design process for EVERY new A series SoC, with a fallback option available just in case. Considering how many A series SoCs Apple ships, doing such a backup design would cost them like 10 or 20 cents per iPhone. At least it would make sense when jumping to a new process, i.e. for the A14 designing a fallback option on an N7 variant and abandoning it only when they knew N5 was fine.
We are talking about the 2023 iPhone, not the 2022. I agree that if it was an unplanned change to N4P AMD etc would get bumped.
Gelsinger is shouting at the top of his lungs while Lisa Su is keeping mum. If they were in the running for POTUS, who do you think the majority would vote for?
That's only the case 'cuz N6 uses EUV while N7 is purely DUV. From the noise TSMC has made about moving customers to N6 from N7, it appears as though many of the same production steps are used between N6 and N7.
ehhhh
Because you would be multiplying the cost and getting extremely limited benefit.
Correct, N6 uses EUV for some layers to simplify what would have been DUV multi-patterning down to a single EUV pass. If I'm not mistaken, you can totally transfer your N7 design and have it fabbed on N6 without any increase in density but what you gain is a potential cost savings in number of masks required and/or faster fab time. Alternatively, you can design for N6 from scratch and use EUV on a few select critical layers where you want slightly more density/PPW.
They may not even have made any Zen 3 based Threadripper processors. After Zen 4 comes out, how attractive will a Zen 3 based Threadripper actually be? It would likely be outperformed by Zen 4 parts significantly for anything that doesn’t take full advantage of the extra cores available on Threadripper. It may even be outperformed by Zen 3 with v-cache for games and a lot of other applications. If Zen 4 has significantly improved FP throughput, some applications may perform better in a 16 core Zen 4 part than a 32 core Zen 3.
The same was true of Zen2 and Zen1/+, considering that the 16C parts will probably clock higher than 32C it's fairly likely to be the case for SIMD heavy workloads.
In the US probably Gelsinger. In countries with actual education systems in place, probably anyone but Gelsinger.
The majority don't even follow what the individual component makers/designers are doing - they just buy pre built systems, and often nothing more than the whim of the salesman determines what brands they may go for.
I don't think getting 1.35X as much cache going from N7 to N5 or 1.2X as much going from N5 to N3 is a limited benefit when you are able to reduce 30% of the power or bump speed up 15% with each successive move. Those are significant improvements. I'm thinking that stacking cache is going to require leaning on these improvements to help with the overall thermal conditions of being packed in so close to the core.
Indeed, because they have to.
If it's 4CUs, then I'm a happy guy. 6CUs@1.9GHz is enough to beat last gen Vega iGPUs after all. Provided OC support isn't locked down, it'll be fun to squeeze out as much as we can
Why are you believing they are fully truthful now? It won't be the first time they mislead, witness the 10nm multi-year fiasco.
Truth is decided in hindsight. His/her point is still valid in that Intel has been more forthcoming in their plans (emphasis on the word "plan") than ever before. Whether or not Intel can execute and achieve those plans in a timely matter is an entirely different story. Intel has a legal obligation, being that they are a publicly traded company, to inform investors if there are any setbacks in their plans. When they figure out there is a setback and when they announce it is subjective. All I know is that it would be illegal to sit on that kind of news for a long period of time.
You could say that I'm hopelessly optimistic. But also if Intel stumbles and misses some target, Gelsinger risks getting fired by the board. He acts like an idiot but he is privy to internal milestones being met and that may explain his overly enthusiastic demeanor.
Frankly I don't care either way. The main benefit is being able to run a Ryzen CPU without needed to buy a dedicated GPU. Normally that's not a big deal because you could always just buy some cheap used low-end GPU for under $100, but those don't exist anymore.
Oh of course, and that's why the CUs are clocked so low. They don't need to be clocked high to do their job right at all. Clocking them lower leaves more power headroom for the CPU cores at the end of the day, and these parts are focused around CPU performance.
It is going to be useful for a lot of folks.
Well, Intel DID clearly mislead their investors about the 10nm process.
Yes, but we must not forget AMD VCN hardware found on every Ryzen APU.
en.wikipedia.org
Facebook
Twitter