So one set of PR vs another set of PR - awesome!:thumbsup:
I predict the following from all parties:
1.)Our tech is better than the competition
2.)Our tech is cheaper than the competition
3.)Our tech is more reliable than the competition
4.)Our tech will be quicker to market than the competition
If in reality the tech does not actually pan out as well as planned it will be "our future tech" will be:
1.)better than the competition
2.)cheaper than the competition
3.)more reliable than the competition
4.)will be quicker to market than the competition
Rinse and repeat.
Its hardly like company PR won't big up their own products and slam the competition's competing products and services.
What else could it be?Just so we're clear, nobody actually knows the details of what info Intel intends to present at the event on Monday, right? All we know is the title of it, which is "Advancing Moore's Law in 2014"... ?
No. That's not how these things work -- not even close.So one set of PR vs another set of PR - awesome!:thumbsup:
Well they did do that with announcing Tri-gate back in 2011, so it may not be out of the question. But, on the other hand, considering that Intel has been holding their cards closer to the vest, they could be playing the waiting game.
Though almost 2 years before the Tri-gate announcement at Fall IDF of 2009 Intel announced their 22nm SRAM - http://download.intel.com/pressroom/kits/events/idffall_2009/pdfs/IDF_MBohr_Briefing.pdf And yet here we are almost at product launch without similar information for 14nm - no question that Intel's changed their strategy on releasing process technology information. And for good reason.
It's pretty clear from the fact that finFETs suddenly appeared on all of the foundry roadmaps soon after Intel's announcement that it was a mistake. (What little Intel gained from it is definitely negated by giving everyone else an extra year of development time to catch up on finFET.) While everyone else certainly has path-finding research going on there's a pretty clear tendency to just follow Intel's lead. Which, by the way, is why I'd find it quite amusing if Intel could find some way to announce that their 10nm process is going to use carbon nanotubes or some other technology which currently isn't feasible when it's actually something entirely different 'Cause I bet that everyone else would rush to proclaim 'me too' on some completely unrealistic schedule while Intel could sit back and laugh.
Though almost 2 years before the Tri-gate announcement at Fall IDF of 2009 Intel announced their 22nm SRAM - http://download.intel.com/pressroom/kits/events/idffall_2009/pdfs/IDF_MBohr_Briefing.pdf And yet here we are almost at product launch without similar information for 14nm - no question that Intel's changed their strategy on releasing process technology information. And for good reason.
It's pretty clear from the fact that finFETs suddenly appeared on all of the foundry roadmaps soon after Intel's announcement that it was a mistake. (What little Intel gained from it is definitely negated by giving everyone else an extra year of development time to catch up on finFET.) While everyone else certainly has path-finding research going on there's a pretty clear tendency to just follow Intel's lead. Which, by the way, is why I'd find it quite amusing if Intel could find some way to announce that their 10nm process is going to use carbon nanotubes or some other technology which currently isn't feasible when it's actually something entirely different 'Cause I bet that everyone else would rush to proclaim 'me too' on some completely unrealistic schedule while Intel could sit back and laugh.
What Intel gained was the attention of mobile device vendors. Intel needed to signal that it had some big advantage worth paying attention to, but unfortunately it could not actually deliver competitive mobile products on its 22nm FinFET process.
We'll see if Intel fares any better with its 14nm designs.
Did Intel really gain that though? Or more importantly, did they gain anything over what they would have by sharing that information with the mobile device vendors under a NDA? I'd argue that they didn't.
No, the reason why Intel released information regarding their next big thing in process technology is that it's what they'd always done. Strained Silicone with 90nm was announced back in August of 2002 over a year before release while HKMG with 45nm was announced about 3 quarters before first products - so finFET with 22nm being announced a year before introduction was par for the course.
I'm not particularly pleased with how closed off things have gotten under BK's lead. I don't know if it's directly a result of his promotion, or a coincidence, but I don't like it.Did Intel really gain that though? Or more importantly, did they gain anything over what they would have by sharing that information with the mobile device vendors under a NDA? I'd argue that they didn't.
No, the reason why Intel released information regarding their next big thing in process technology is that it's what they'd always done. Strained Silicone with 90nm was announced back in August of 2002 over a year before release while HKMG with 45nm was announced about 3 quarters before first products - so finFET with 22nm being announced a year before introduction was par for the course.
So true.
Public release of technology IP is done by Intel as a means of boosting and supporting the valuation of their brand.
It feeds into the stock price, and to a smaller extent into the mindshare of the average consumer which then trickles down into an even smaller portion of converted sales at the consumer level, but really the primary reason they do it is for maintaining brand valuation and the portion of stock price that brand valuation impacts.
Anything that matters to their customers (DELL, HP, etc) or potential customers (mobile) will have been communicated well in advance of the public info release and in far greater technical detail.
I'm not particularly pleased with how closed off things have gotten under BK's lead. I don't know if it's directly a result of his promotion, or a coincidence, but I don't like it.
lets see when Broadwell makes it to desktop before getting to 10nm.2) Intel stated HVM in 2015.
Everybody says things but meeting them in reality is not easy. yeah 10nm does not need EUV. quad pattern immersion litho should be enough. But these nodes are going to be damn restrictive wrt design rules.3) According to Brian Krzanich, Intel hasn't changed its 10nm schedule, even though 14nm is delayed by half a year.
4) Intel doesn't need EUV for their 10nm node.
6) TSMC's 20FF is expected to ship in mass products in 2016. 2015 will be 20nm.
I suggest you stop calling TSMC nodes the way you want. TSMC 10nm is not 14FF. Lets wait and see if Intel 14nm has a significant performance, power and area advantage over TSMC 16FF+. btw nobody cares where you put your money. we know your bias towards Intel. :whiste:7) TSMC says their 10nm node (with 3rd generation FinFET) is scheduled to launch 2 years after their 16nm node, so early 2018 is the most optimistic release for 10nm (=14FF) products, but I'd rather put my money on late 2018.
[Citation needed]just like Intel said Broadwell was scheduled for mid 2015 and then pushed it to Q4 2015.
I think he meant mid-2014 to 4Q2014. 2015 doesn't make sense.
@raghu78
"lets see when Broadwell makes it to desktop before getting to 10nm."
what do you mean by getting to 10nm. producing test chips or getting to a certain yield. 10nm isnt coming out before 2016 and by your own words broadwell desktop is mid 2015
What Intel gained was the attention of mobile device vendors. Intel needed to signal that it had some big advantage worth paying attention to, but unfortunately it could not actually deliver competitive mobile products on its 22nm FinFET process.
They will have yet another abortion on their hands if they try their optimistic 'Intel Inside' pricing strategy. In the mobile segment Intel have neither the brand exclusivity nor the performance high-ground to command any premium whatsoever.We'll see if Intel fares any better with its 14nm designs.
I'm not particularly pleased with how closed off things have gotten under BK's lead. I don't know if it's directly a result of his promotion, or a coincidence, but I don't like it.
Yes they will.IDF can't come soon enough. I hope they finally give us a glimpse of Broadwell's graphics performance and power efficiency.
If there are no problems it will launch in 2016, just like some people here are using TSMC's stated risk production to derive launch.just like Intel said Broadwell was scheduled for mid 2015 and then pushed it to Q4 2015.
TSMC's 10nm does not have Germanium or III-V fins.I suggest you stop calling TSMC nodes the way you want. TSMC 10nm is not 14FF. Lets wait and see if Intel 14nm has a significant performance, power and area advantage over TSMC 16FF+.
[Citation needed]
actually i am expecting the gap between 14nm and 10nm to be atleast the same as 22nm to 14nm if not more. Thats roughly 2.5 years. I think early Q2 to mid 2017 is when we might see the first 10nm products from Intel.
This estimate is based on nothing and contradicts Intel's statements by 1 year. It's like the person who predicted Skylake to launch in Q3 of 2016.
Oh brilliant, now we are blaming the manufacturing process for Intel's failure in mobile segment!
Face it, Intel only failed because they did not price their product sensibly. Witness the success of horrid Android tablets and phones that have impotent ARM SoC within. These Crapdroid devices have CPUs and SoCs far worse than anything Intel produces with their 22nm process, yet they dominate the market. If you price your product sensibly for its performance, it sells. Always.
Over the past few years relatively unknown companies from Taiwan and China have come to dominate the segment (by volume) thanks to their sensible pricing strategy.
The mobile/tablet market has been trending towards lower cost and low -bordering on nil- margins since its very conception, somehow Intel cannot accept this and always fall short where pricing is concerned.
If I were Intel shareholder I would ask them to either accept low profit margins and go for volume and segment dominance, or get out of mobile segment altogether. Right now all Intel are doing is burning billions every year in futile chase of a segment that only exists in their retard CEO's fantasies. It's utterly pathetic, and only their market dominance in high-end CPUs allows them to be this profligate with cash.
They will have yet another abortion on their hands if they try their optimistic 'Intel Inside' pricing strategy. In the mobile segment Intel have neither the brand exclusivity nor the performance high-ground to command any premium whatsoever.
Until Intel accept this reality and price their mobile SoCs to fit into <$99 and cheaper tablets and phones, they will continue to deliver dead products.
Apparently they won't. You have a point: there's a reasonable chance for an EOY 2016 launch, but there is no information about such a schedule for Canonlake.Even if Intel will keep exactly 24 months, first 10nm products (low power mobile parts) would only be available in Q4 2016.
Oh brilliant, now we are blaming the manufacturing process for Intel's failure in mobile segment!
Face it, Intel only failed because they did not price their product sensibly. Witness the success of horrid Android tablets and phones that have impotent ARM SoC within. These Crapdroid devices have CPUs and SoCs far worse than anything Intel produces with their 22nm process, yet they dominate the market. If you price your product sensibly for its performance, it sells. Always.