And such a thing is why Intel's 10nm process is somewhat exciting for arm SoCs, no?
IIRC >3ghz 250uw(microwatts) per mhz so <1w, is what they claimed
they're interesting because they can hit really high frequencies and deliver some really good performance with reasonable power draw.
And such a thing is why Intel's 10nm process is somewhat exciting for arm SoCs, no?
IIRC >3ghz 250uw(microwatts) per mhz so <1w, is what they claimed
Intel has been renowned for their clocklike Tick-Tock manufacturing prowess, delivering a new process node with 2x density every 2 years, for many nodes, reliably, leading the industry in performance, density and yields.
Since 14nm, Intel has suffered a lot of delays and simply has failed to deliver on its manufacturing capability. Brian Krzanich' promise of relentless pursuit of Moore's Law has not come true.
TSMC and Samsung, on the other hand after the 20nm hiccup, have delivered on 16nm and 10nm, with no signs yet of any 7nm problems for TSMC.
Intel's problem is one of arrogance. They believe that if they are having crippling, show-stopping problems, its competitors have no hope of delivering on what they promise.
Intel seems to have been overly aggressive with the choice of SAQP with DUV. The MMP of 36nm forces use of SAQP with DUV which leads to increased mask count, complexity and hence higher probability of creating defects due to more processing steps. TSMC and GF have chosen 40nm as MMP for a reason at 7nm. That allows them to avoid SAQP and lower mask count / complexity. Samsung has chosen to go only EUV at 7LPP with a MMP of 36nm and CPP of 54nm which is identical to Intel 10nm specs. The decision to go EUV only has pushed out their 7nm by over a year behind TSMC .
I think Intel might have expected EUV to be ready earlier and taken an over aggressive approach on their 10nm process specs. With EUV being delayed they seemed to have run into complexity / yield issues using SAQP with DUV. But from the magnitude of the delays I think the problems are larger than just yield. It also looks like Intel missed performance targets which were quite moderate to start with (25% perf increase vs 14nm). Intel and Samsung seemed to have gambled hard on EUV and we are seeing the former struggle and the latter delayed.
7800X has way more PCI-E lanes, supports 128gb of quad channel ram, and has AVX-512, so it will have some advantages over 8700K.
Remember, I'm responding to this:
That is only 3 fabrication process shrinks (65 nm to 45 nm, 45 nm to 32 nm, and 32 nm to 22 nm) unless you ignore Haswell refresh. That is out of what, 17 process shrinks. And it is only true if you ignore other chips.
Yes, Tick-Tock has happened, but not that often in the history of processors. Intel was fine before tick-tock, will be fine after tick-tock, and AMD has done fine without tick-tock. It just isn't necessary. It wasn't an unpredictable confusing mess before and it won't be now.
Buy a motherboard compatible with your processor. End of story. That wasn't that messy.
Well, lets say in 2012 we had a pretty good idea what we can expect in 2015 - 14nm Skylake - a new architecture on an improved process. Yes, it could have failed, but it was working for quite some time and Intel was sending really strong messages to the audience on each conference how is tick tock doing well. And it worked fine until 2015, more or less, basically since 2006.Tick-Tock did serve to give the the impression that Intel was turning out new and improved products like, ahem, clockwork. This aided buyer's perceptions of them, but ultimately raised expectations that eventually couldn't be met. As said, they are fine without that artificial cadence.
They weren't future proof to begin with. A core count increase was clearly in the works and discussed in advance in the enthusiast forums. The successful product launch from the competition should have been the last sensible warning sign that the time of quads was at an end.Their expensive future proof CPUs are basically absolete in a few month after launch. (if purchased during summer then even worse).
Situation with Kaby Lake-Coffee Lake is just the beggining and I can image that a lof of Kaby Lake users are not very happy now. Their expensive future proof CPUs are basically absolete in a few month after launch. (if purchased during summer then even worse).
My Hero! (the board, not you, sorry )
That one really annoys me as well. Takes up valuable backplane space, for nothing outside of a few fringe users. Let 'em get a USB to PS2 adapter if they just gotta have it.Do we still need PS2 ports?
I don't get this logic. Did their Kaby Lake CPUs suddenly get slower and less 'future proof' because of upcoming CPU releases? No, they are still just as fast and as 'future proof' as they were originally.Their expensive future proof CPUs are basically absolete in a few month after launch. (if purchased during summer then even worse).
Do we still need PS2 ports?
Intel has denied delaying Cannonlake to EOY'18.
https://twitter.com/witeken/status/911219352745148416
I suck at internet searches, so someone could probably find earlier references. But here is one from July 2016 mentioning 6-core Coffee Lake:Well I thought about it but the 6-core rumors were already known End of 2016 so it wasn't a complete surprise. And that Zen would be a 8-core was also known. So kaby-lake buyers knew the risks, at least enthusiast that are informed. The uninformed won't even know about CFl.
Launching in Q1 or H1 '18 would do the job better I think, at least from psychological point of view. IMHO the best launch window for 6 core was in January, ~16 months after Skylake. But OK, it is as it is.They weren't future proof to begin with. A core count increase was clearly in the works and discussed in advance in the enthusiast forums. The successful product launch from the competition should have been the last sensible warning sign that the time of quads was at an end.
More importantly I don't see how Intel maintaining their clockwork cadence would have made this transition any easier: did you honestly expect Intel to let the market know in advance that 6c/12t CPUs are coming while also inviting customers to purchase their newly launched 4c/8t product? Had they kept their (presumably) original plan to launch CFL in Q1 2018 would the summer Kaby Lake purchase be any better?
Well, the performance is there, but not the value. Even 6 years old Sandy Bridge still has some of its value but in case of Kaby Lake this will be much much shorter story. Shortest in a decade I assume.I don't get this logic. Did their Kaby Lake CPUs suddenly get slower and less 'future proof' because of upcoming CPU releases? No, they are still just as fast and as 'future proof' as they were originally.
Intel was on roughly a 13 month average cadence for quite a while. But Kaby Lake was late by a few months. While mobile Kaby Lake Launched Aug 2016, desktop was delayed until Jan 2017. So, Kaby Lake will have a slightly shorter time frame than others, but not much shorter. Had Kaby Lake desktop launched with mobile, it would be a very typical distance between generations. The Sandy Bridge 2700K had even a shorter gap, although admittedly the 3770K isn't much of an upgrade.Launching in Q1 or H1 '18 would do the job better I think, at least from psychological point of view...but in case of Kaby Lake this will be much much shorter story. Shortest in a decade I assume.