Broadwell to Skylake, will be similar to the transition from Prescott to Conroe

[frozentundra123456]

I guess it is a matter of philosophy. No matter how big the company, resources are ultimately limited. So do you devote the most resources to the area where you are weakest and try to build it up, or try to build on your strength. I dont really know what is the right answer for intel. I would love to see them compete successfully against ARM, and I think they can do it in tablets and of course all larger x86 devices. Whether they can ever do it in phones is very open to debate, simply because I dont see a need for x86 in phones, whereas in tablets and larger devices, I do. And lets face it, the real advantage of intel is ability to run x86. I dont really see the point of using atom to run ARM. If 14nm had been on time and a huge improvement, it could have been compelling, but now there are plenty of ARM chips (cheap) to run phones.

 

[maddogchen]

i guess when it comes out, it'll be time to upgrade my i5-2500k

 

[Excessi0n]

My concerns were the nodes. Node shrinks not giving us much in the high end. We used to get higher mhz as well as lower consumption, all as a result of the node shrink alone. But their 22nm brought us very very little compared to 32nm or 45nm. Very very little in the high end, it didnt raise the bar on overclocking nor consumption at high mhz.
I fear that 14nm is gonna follow suit.

I thought 22nm didn't improve the high end compared to 32nm because of the switch from planar to finfets? Something about the frequency/voltage curve being a different shape, so that the increase was huge at low voltages but nonexistent at high voltage. Since the move to 14nm doesn't have the sort of fundamental structural differences that the move to 22nm had, we should see improvements again at the high end...

We'll know for sure when somebody gets their hands on an unlocked 14nm part.

 

[ocre]

I may be jumping the gun, i wouldnt even mind one bit if that turns out to be the case.

but my assumption is broadwell/14nm will not move us up in the high end. It is just speculation, i wouldnt mind being wrong on this. I am thinking that we might even go down in clock speed, as in nothing clocked as high as the 4790k

 

[Idontcare]

I thought 22nm didn't improve the high end compared to 32nm because of the switch from planar to finfets? Something about the frequency/voltage curve being a different shape, so that the increase was huge at low voltages but nonexistent at high voltage. Since the move to 14nm doesn't have the sort of fundamental structural differences that the move to 22nm had, we should see improvements again at the high end...

We'll know for sure when somebody gets their hands on an unlocked 14nm part.

Not really, I mean the apparent cause-and-effect are not real. The observations are real.

It is true 22nm saturates at a lower voltage relative to 32nm. And it is true that 22nm uses finfets whereas 32nm uses planar. But those are unrelated aspects as far as the voltage/clockspeed curves are concerned.

Intel could have just as easily directed their 32nm R&D group to tune the 32nm planar transistors to have the same voltage response profile as they directed the 22nm R&D team to develop.

The voltage profile is because of one thing - Intel wanted to go after the mobile markets more than they wanted to go after high clockspeeds.

If they doubled the 22nm xtor team's budget then the xtor 22nm xtor team could have done both. But if you (as in Intel's budgetary decision makers) don't double the resources then the engineers have to prioritize and make trade-offs in terms of engineering scope.

So they targeted tuning the 22nm finfets so as to enable much lower voltage operations at same or higher clockspeeds relative to 32nm while pegging the top-end voltage/frequency curve to be comparable to 32nm. Maintain on the high-end, but gain ground on the low-end, all while operating within the development budget they were allocated.

22nm (or 14nm) could have just as easily gone the other direction, on the same budget, at the expense of giving up the frequency/power/voltage scaling at the low-end (and thus giving up on any business plans for mobile products).

14nm could quite easily become a repeat experience for the enthusiast desktop crowd if Intel directed the 14nm xtor R&D team to push even harder on tuning for ever lower operating voltages and power consumption while not giving them the budget (or the prioritization) to improve voltage/frequency scaling at the top-end.

I think what happened was the finfet transition just so happen to coincide with the shifting priorities from desktop frequency profiling to mobile frequency profiling, and to the layperson it can appear as if one required the other (or vice versa) when really it was just a coincidence in the timing for both transitions.

But it really just comes down to R&D priorities and directives. When Apple is banking $18B profit in 90 days for selling mobile phones, that tells Intel they are missing out on huge profit opportunities for not having allocated enough of their own R&D resources towards prioritizing the development of lower-power enabling process nodes (and products).

At the R&D level that filters down in the form of "stop worrying about optimizing or improving the top-end frequency curve, focus on optimizing the other-end of the curve as that is where the customers are currently willing to throw their disposable income towards!"

If you were Intel, which would you rather have - $3.7B in quarterly profits or $18B in quarterly profits?

 

[2is]

If you were Intel, which would you rather have - $3.7B in quarterly profits or $18B in quarterly profits?

$21.7B in quarterly profits? :awe:

 

[Arachnotronic]

$21.7B in quarterly profits? :awe:

Last quarter Apple did $24.24 billion in operating profit (i.e. pre-tax). Apple's success is truly mind-boggling.

 

[FrancotTe]

Nouveau sur ce forum.[url=http://www.coquegsm.com/category-accessoires-coque-samsung-galaxy-s6-26.html]chargeur voiture galaxy S6 etui Sony Xperia Z4[/URL]http://www.coquegsm.com/category-accessoires-sony-xperia-z4-16.html

 

[witeken]

just as easily

Source / citation needed.

Doesn't FinFET have an inherently other slope? Isn't there a wall somewhere around 4-5GHz that quickly increases power? Doesn't Intel have multiple process flavors?

 

[ClockHound]

If you were Intel, which would you rather have - $3.7B in quarterly profits or $18B in quarterly profits?

That's an interesting question...The answer seems obvious. However, I don't see the obvious way that Intel can soak up a huge chunk of Apple's smartphone biz.

Why would Apple choose to use an Intel chip that may offer a slight performance increase, but a decrease in their profits? Would Intel sacrifice their margins to get close to Apple's cost for their own in-house designs? Why would Apple give up their exclusivity and vertical integration in smartphones? I don't know. I barely pretend to be a marketing expert on the internet.

If Apple show no interest, can Intel make $10-15B a quarter selling their x86s core to Samsung's mobile division? Not too sure.

Despite the phenomenal success that Apple has had by morphing into a smartphone company, how long before they're the next Nokia or worse, Blackberry?

Sadly for Intel, they've arrived 6-8 years late to the mobile party gravy train. They can scrape the rails with their 14nm spoons, but that super bullet train is heading to the final destination - the low-margin commodity stop. The very place Intel has avoided visiting in the past due to its unsavory profit sheet reputation.

The next five years are going to be very interesting for both Apple and Intel. For us overclocking desktop enthusiasts, not so much.

 

[2is]

Yeah, i'm not sure how Intel is going to make any real headway in phones. They will need to do better and likely cheaper than the likes of Samsung and Qualcomm. While they certainly have the resources and expertise to make something better, it's not likely to be cheaper.

That said, there's another market where they can do really well in, and that's tablets. With the iPad losing market share, and more fully functional tablets like the Surface Pro 3 and soon, Surface 3 becoming more popular, Intel's timing is pretty darn good in this regard. MS and Intel need to be joined at the hip. MS needs to polish their OS to give it even more mass appeal, and Intel in turn needs to deliver a CPU with excellent performance and power characteristics. Also, tablets like the Surface Pro are expensive enough to keep the Intel share holders happy. I can certainly see "WIntel" tablets being very successful in the not too distant future.

 

[Excessi0n]

If you were Intel, which would you rather have - $3.7B in quarterly profits or $18B in quarterly profits?

I would like $0B in profits, since profit is just revenue that you're throwing away when it could have been used to expand or otherwise advance your business.

The shareholders might disagree, though. :awe:

 

[Idontcare]

I would like $0B in profits, since profit is just revenue that you're throwing away when it could have been used to expand or otherwise advance your business.

The shareholders might disagree, though. :awe:

:thumbsup:

I like the way you think!

 

[Mortius]

I would like $0B in profits, since profit is just revenue that you're throwing away when it could have been used to expand or otherwise advance your business.

The shareholders might disagree, though. :awe:

It seemed to work for Amazon.

 

[tential]

I may be jumping the gun, i wouldnt even mind one bit if that turns out to be the case.

but my assumption is broadwell/14nm will not move us up in the high end. It is just speculation, i wouldnt mind being wrong on this. I am thinking that we might even go down in clock speed, as in nothing clocked as high as the 4790k

I've given up on 14nm at this point. I'd like to be wrong, but after reading that Core-M review and just seeing Broadwell come out in general... I have low expectations for skylake.

 

[witeken]

I've given up on 14nm at this point. I'd like to be wrong, but after reading that Core-M review and just seeing Broadwell come out in general... I have low expectations for skylake.

Broadwell-Y obliterates ARM.
Broadwell-Y would have crushed a 4.5W Haswell-Y as well.

Broadwell is a perfect CPU.

 

[scannall]

Broadwell-Y obliterates ARM.
Broadwell-Y would have crushed a 4.5W Haswell-Y as well.

Broadwell is a perfect CPU.

With a tray price of $281 each. At that price it isn't going to get very many design wins.

http://ark.intel.com/products/84672

 

[witeken]

With a tray price of $281 each. At that price it isn't going to get very many design wins.

http://ark.intel.com/products/84672

1. That isn't the price OEMs have to pay. E.g. $250 Chromebook with $150 Core Celeron.
2. It wasn't targeted at the mainstream anyway (although I'd agree that $1000+ for a Core M device is pushing it).

 

[ninaholic37]

That said, there's another market where they can do really well in, and that's tablets. With the iPad losing market share, and more fully functional tablets like the Surface Pro 3 and soon, Surface 3 becoming more popular, Intel's timing is pretty darn good in this regard. MS and Intel need to be joined at the hip. MS needs to polish their OS to give it even more mass appeal, and Intel in turn needs to deliver a CPU with excellent performance and power characteristics. Also, tablets like the Surface Pro are expensive enough to keep the Intel share holders happy. I can certainly see "WIntel" tablets being very successful in the not too distant future.

Nah, Intel and Windows are both 8 years late, and for this reason iOS and Android tablets have probably been much more successful. Maybe that is the true meaning behind "Windows 8" (8 years too late into Tablets). I think the tablet fad will be dying down or saturating soon anyway. I'm hoping that a new invention will push tablets into their grave, for the most part.

 

[StrangerGuy]

That's an interesting question...The answer seems obvious. However, I don't see the obvious way that Intel can soak up a huge chunk of Apple's smartphone biz.

Why would Apple choose to use an Intel chip that may offer a slight performance increase, but a decrease in their profits? Would Intel sacrifice their margins to get close to Apple's cost for their own in-house designs? Why would Apple give up their exclusivity and vertical integration in smartphones? I don't know. I barely pretend to be a marketing expert on the internet.

If Apple show no interest, can Intel make $10-15B a quarter selling their x86s core to Samsung's mobile division? Not too sure.

Despite the phenomenal success that Apple has had by morphing into a smartphone company, how long before they're the next Nokia or worse, Blackberry?

Sadly for Intel, they've arrived 6-8 years late to the mobile party gravy train. They can scrape the rails with their 14nm spoons, but that super bullet train is heading to the final destination - the low-margin commodity stop. The very place Intel has avoided visiting in the past due to its unsavory profit sheet reputation.

The next five years are going to be very interesting for both Apple and Intel. For us overclocking desktop enthusiasts, not so much.

Intel doesn't have its own desirable OS.
Intel's branding strength is non existent compared to Apple.
Intel has little control over the quality and the appeal of the end product ultimately reaches the end consumer.
Intel sure as hell as can't adopt Apple's premium pricing only strategy without torpedoing their existing market.

Do I need to go on? "14nm, Core M? What the hell is that?" -The average joe

 

[frozentundra123456]

1. Intel doesnt have its own OS, but it has windows, which is what a huge majority of legacy software runs on.
2. Intel doesnt have the brand appeal of apple, but it definitely is a well recognized and respected brand.
3. I am sure Intel does have some influence on the final product that their chips go into. They dont have the top to bottom integration of Apple, but there is some control. Didnt they implement the whole ultrabook standard that specifies size, thickness, etc of the product?
4. They dont have the consumer premium pricing of Apple, but they have Super-Premium prices in servers, where Apple has zero sales.
5. Do you think the "Average Joe" knows the name of the processor in the i-phone and what process node it is manufactured on?

Not to say there is no validity to your points, but they are oversimplified and dont really tell the whole story.

 

[2is]

Nah, Intel and Windows are both 8 years late, and for this reason iOS and Android tablets have probably been much more successful. Maybe that is the true meaning behind "Windows 8" (8 years too late into Tablets). I think the tablet fad will be dying down or saturating soon anyway. I'm hoping that a new invention will push tablets into their grave, for the most part.

What are you basing your opinion on? I suggest you look at current market trends. They aren't too late at all. iPad sales are falling, Surface sales are getting better. iPad still has much stronger sales for sure, but the gap is getting narrower not wider. People are wanting more functionality from tablets now. The iPad has not gained any functionality since the iPad2 added a rear facing camera. If that's what the market still wanted then I'd say you're right, they're too late, but again, look at what the sales are starting to tell you. The market is prime for MS and Intel.

 

[alcoholbob]

Last quarter Apple did $24.24 billion in operating profit (i.e. pre-tax). Apple's success is truly mind-boggling.

I'd say its definitely mind boggling in this current day and age where more businesses are failing than being created and under so much government spending that a business could be this successful, yes. (Government accounts for more than 50% of spending in the economy but only about 1/4 of the GDP).

Obviously Apple's success isn't really comparable to what oil, rail, or steel magnates achieved in the 19th century when government spending was 3% of GDP. In terms of the pure amount of assets that the Rockefellers, Morgans, or Carnegie individually amassed, they could buy Apple a dozen times over.

 

[ninaholic37]

What are you basing your opinion on? I suggest you look at current market trends. They aren't too late at all. iPad sales are falling, Surface sales are getting better. iPad still has much stronger sales for sure, but the gap is getting narrower not wider. People are wanting more functionality from tablets now. The iPad has not gained any functionality since the iPad2 added a rear facing camera. If that's what the market still wanted then I'd say you're right, they're too late, but again, look at what the sales are starting to tell you. The market is prime for MS and Intel.

Yeah, what I meant was that people probably wanted an affordable Intel tablet even in 2007, instead they got ARM tablets. They potentially missed out on a lot of sales by not coming up with any compelling products all that time and keeping their "5 year Atom cycle", then needing contra-revenue for Bay Trail to work, hence I feel they are "8 years late" rather than "Intel's timing is pretty darn good". I probably should have bolded that part of your comment so it was more clear.

 

[2is]

Yeah, what I meant was that people probably wanted an affordable Intel tablet even in 2007, instead they got ARM tablets. They potentially missed out on a lot of sales by not coming up with any compelling products all that time and keeping their "5 year Atom cycle", then needing contra-revenue for Bay Trail to work, hence I feel they are "8 years late" rather than "Intel's timing is pretty darn good". I probably should have bolded that part of your comment so it was more clear.

They may have missed out on selling a basic tablet, but the move to more functional tablets is relatively new and MS/Intel are in the best position to deliver that out of anyone else, including Apple.