TSMC 16nm in production, 10nm still on schedule (2017). Intel IDF Shenzhen

[dahorns]

That's just a twist on a quote below from Witeken, which I was considering putting in as a funny sig line but decided to drop it until your post :




What would you say to Ford if they said they were going to have an all new redesigned Mustang in production in 2015, and showed off a prototype in 2015 but didn't sell one until 2017?

The simple fact is Intel is 12-24 months behind its old road maps. TSMC did the same thing with its 20nm, albeit only falling 6-9 months behind.

It does not matter one bit why, nor does anyone care why. This industry, just like every other industry, is about products. Pre-announcing said products and being unable to deliver said product is, and should be, a black mark on the record of said company.

Woosh, IDC's post went right over your head.

 

[Mortius]

""The 14nm technology is in full development mode now and on track for full production readiness at the end of next year," Bohr said."

http://www.crn.com/news/components-...intel-charts-course-to-10nm-chips-by-2015.htm

Did you actually read this article? I'm surprised you didn't pick up on what is highly damning evidence of Intel's delays.

The first paragraph of the article:

Intel isn't planning on moving away from its Moore's Law strategy for transistor development anytime soon, with die sizes as small as 10nm already on its research radar for 2015.

Current die sizes are >100mm^2, yet apparently Intel will start making dies with a size of 10nm (presumably on one side only).

The article which you clam is highly authoritative regarding Intel's future plans announces that Intel are releasing processors that are so small that you cannot point to one without an electron microsocope.

Later on:

...and it is already paving the way for production of a new line of both 14nm CPUs and system-on-a-chips (SoCs), code-named Skylake, for 2013.

Not only was Broadwell due for release in 2013, but Skylake also! 2013 must have been a crowded year in the release calendar, with Haswell, Broadwell and Skylake all being released in the space of 12 months.

Just imagine the joy that people would have experienced when their state of the art Haswell system is out of date after 4 months and is embarrassingly slow after 8.

It can't get more damning than that.

 

[witeken]

That's just a twist on a quote below from Witeken, which I was considering putting in as a funny sig line but decided to drop it until your post :

Here's another way to look at it:

The roadmap for the semiconductor industry is Moore's Law. So every 2 years you can expect a new node, at most. Now you could go back and see how much Intel (or anyone else) deviates from that timeline.

According to AnandTech:

You'll see that 14nm is longer, but I suggest you wait until 10nm and average it out to see what the current pace looks like. (But of course it's getting harder.)

 

[Mortius]

The multiple articles I linked to were from 2011/2012, describing Intel's roadmap at that time.

According to those roadmaps, we should see 10nm this year (2015). That is not going to happen.

I suppose you are still upset that we don't have 10GHz CPUs by now.

Apparently that was considered a very disappointing prediction as it was supposed to have been 128GHz processors instead.

 

[NTMBK]

I suppose you are still upset that we don't have 10GHz CPUs by now.

You know what? I am upset!

I understand the reasons why we're not going to get them, but it still makes me a little sad. Feels like progress is really grinding to a halt. I remember when processors first hit "the big Gig", how much of a breakthrough that felt like, and how far we came in such a short time.

 

[Mortius]

One further point

Promising things you can't deliver falls into the category of FUD. TSMC is in the same boat as Intel on this one.

The use of the word "promise" suggests that you do not know what Intel actually said. Any announcement that they make regarding future plans is almost certainly accompanied by a statement that looks something like this:

The above statements and any others in this document that refer to plans and expectations for the second quarter, the year and the future are forward-looking statements that involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Words such as “anticipates,” “expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “seeks,” “estimates,” “may,” “will,” “should” and their variations identify forward-looking statements. Statements that refer to or are based on projections, uncertain events or assumptions also identify forward-looking statements. Many factors could affect Intel’s actual results, and variances from Intel’s current expectations regarding such factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements. Intel presently considers the following to be important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the company’s expectations. Demand for Intel's products is highly variable and, in recent years, Intel has experienced declining orders in the traditional PC market segment. Demand could be different from Intel's expectations due to factors including changes in business and economic conditions; consumer confidence or income levels; customer acceptance of Intel’s and competitors’ products; competitive and pricing pressures, including actions taken by competitors; supply constraints and other disruptions affecting customers; changes in customer order patterns including order cancellations; and changes in the level of inventory at customers. Intel operates in highly competitive industries and its operations have high costs that are either fixed or difficult to reduce in the short term. Intel's gross margin percentage could vary significantly from expectations based on capacity utilization; variations in inventory valuation, including variations related to the timing of qualifying products for sale; changes in revenue levels; segment product mix; the timing and execution of the manufacturing ramp and associated costs; excess or obsolete inventory; changes in unit costs; defects or disruptions in the supply of materials or resources; and product manufacturing quality/yields. Variations in gross margin may also be caused by the timing of Intel product introductions and related expenses, including marketing expenses, and Intel's ability to respond quickly to technological developments and to introduce new products or incorporate new features into existing products, which may result in restructuring and asset impairment charges. Intel's results could be affected by adverse economic, social, political and physical/infrastructure conditions in countries where Intel, its customers or its suppliers operate, including military conflict and other security risks, natural disasters, infrastructure disruptions, health concerns and fluctuations in currency exchange rates. Intel’s results could be affected by the timing of closing of acquisitions, divestitures and other significant transactions. Intel's results could be affected by adverse effects associated with product defects and errata (deviations from published specifications), and by litigation or regulatory matters involving intellectual property, stockholder, consumer, antitrust, disclosure and other issues, such as the litigation and regulatory matters described in Intel's SEC filings. An unfavorable ruling could include monetary damages or an injunction prohibiting Intel from manufacturing or selling one or more products, precluding particular business practices, impacting Intel’s ability to design its products, or requiring other remedies such as compulsory licensing of intellectual property. A detailed discussion of these and other factors that could affect Intel’s results is included in Intel’s SEC filings, including the company’s most recent reports on Form 10-Q, Form 10-K and earnings release. [emphasis mine]

With a disclaimer of that length, which points to one which is even more detailed, can things really be described as a promise?

 

[krumme]

Arhh give it a rest. Communications is not a legal contract between to equal partners. Who gives what disclaimers gf or intel gives at the end of the ppt. A disclaimer is not a means to remove responsibility. Not even in the us

 

[RandallFlagg]

I suppose you are still upset that we don't have 10GHz CPUs by now.

Apparently that was considered a very disappointing prediction as it was supposed to have been 128GHz processors instead.

Nope, not one bit.

My post that kicked off the Intel apologists was simply stating that TSMC had slid from similar statements in the past, so them hitting 10 nm by 2017 was dubious. I also pointed out that Intel had slipped on past roadmaps as well and were 12-24 months behind a node shrink based on 2011\2012 roadmaps. Point being, why believe the roadmaps now?

And now here we are, with someone telling me I'm upset about not hitting 10ghz, and all kinds of denial / justifications about something that quite simply just is.

I really didn't think I was saying anything new. And lo and behold there's a whole new thread about - how Intel is going to be ~ 12 months behind delivering 10nm. Folks this is old news.

Samsung / GloFlo are the ones to watch.