At the recent International Solid State Circuits Conference (ISSCC)...

>At the recent International Solid State Circuits Conference (ISSCC), an Intel engineer seemingly admitted to what Intel's marketing department won't: Intel's 10-nanometer technology is behind competing 7-nanometer technologies in a crucial area.

>According to Intel, a six-transistor SRAM bit cell implemented in its 10-nanometer technology measures 0.0312 square micrometers. Competing six-transistor SRAM bit cells implemented in Samsung's (NASDAQOTH:SSNLF), Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company's (NYSE:TSM), and GlobalFoundries' 7-nanometer technologies measure in at 0.026 square micrometers, 0.0272 square micrometers, and 0.0269 square micrometers, respectively.

>Indeed, while the other three companies' 7-nanometer technologies are all within spitting distance of one another in terms of six-transistor SRAM bit cell size, Intel's 10-nanometer stands out as being woefully behind.

They can improve their yields, but that just means they're producing more slow chips.

Attached: Intel Admits That Its 10-Nano Technology Is Behind the Competition 20-06-2018, 21-44-25.png (1245x885, 297K)

Other urls found in this thread:

fool.com/investing/2018/02/19/intel-admits-that-its-10-nano-technology-is-behind.aspx
engadget.com/2018/04/27/intel-delays-cannon-lake-chips-again/
semiwiki.com/forum/content/7191-iedm-2017-intel-versus-globalfoundries-leading-edge.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PWRficient#CPU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

fool.com/investing/2018/02/19/intel-admits-that-its-10-nano-technology-is-behind.aspx

Attached: 1514934884912.jpg (690x388, 45K)

>Cannon Lake CPUs, which use Intel's new 10-nanometer process, were originally supposed to arrive in 2016. Since then, rival TSMC has released 10-nanometer chips and Samsung is pumping out its second generation of 10-nanometer CPUs. Samsung has actually qualified 8-nanometer chips, and by the time Cannon Lake arrives, they might be in production.

>Intel has said that its own 10-nanometer tech will be superior to that of Samsung and TSMC, as it will have more features per square inch. However, it's getting so far behind that even if that's accurate (and some industry watchers don't think so), it might be moot by the time the chips arrive. Intel is sticking with its current tech for "Coffee Lake" eighth-gen chips, but CEO Brian Krzanich noted during the earnings call that it has improved 14-nanometer performance by 70 percent since it first launched.

engadget.com/2018/04/27/intel-delays-cannon-lake-chips-again/

>It is also surprising to me to see how far Intel has fallen from the process lead they had. First with HKMG by several years, first with FinFet by several year, I suppose they are still first to do cobalt interconnect but in terms of process density the foundries have caught them and appear poised to take a substantial lead over the next several years.

semiwiki.com/forum/content/7191-iedm-2017-intel-versus-globalfoundries-leading-edge.html

Attached: SemiWiki.com - IEDM 2017 - Intel Versus GLOBALFOUNDRIES at the Leading Edge 20-06-2018, 21-58-04.png (1231x734, 68K)

Attached: intell btfo.jpg (638x599, 123K)

>51% yield at the the most mature 14nm process

Attached: Die Per Wafer Calculator - Caly Technologies 20-06-2018, 22-02-48 - calculated.png (1231x734, 192K)

No, this can't be happening!

Remove this thread at once, or I'm gonna report this to the ADL!

Buy my CPUs!

Attached: jidf.jpg (1196x676, 673K)

Thing is, this shit is just Karma for the stunts they've been pulling over all the years. Their underhanded practices, most especially during the Pentium4/Athlon64 years where all things that they still haven't quite paid for, (to this day, the money the courts ordered Intel to pay AMD in damages has still not been paid out even a bit, with Intel continuously tying it up with dragged-out appeals) left a legacy that has now caught up with them.

There have been countless instances of things that Intel has done that really spits in the face of technological progress, and now they're paying the price for their lack of momentum and respect for innovation.

>comparing ARM shit with faster x86

>six-transistor SRAM bit cell
in the oven with you.

This thread is extremely antisemitic

Jesus fucking christ. Even if they fix it, they still lose.

Intel were so focused on changing sockets and chipsets, they forgot to change fabs xD

Attached: 1447161347847.jpg (1846x1923, 607K)

I can't take this anymore

Attached: 1528964800915.jpg (681x522, 83K)

Daily reminder:
Even Microsoft can deliver 10 nm cores, albeit they are cores of their experimental E2 architecture.

If Apple isn't dumping Intel for AMD (And solving issues like trying to cool a 14 nm chip with cooling system probably tought to 10 nm chips and improving their battery life and LPDDR4 support) its because or Intel has Apple grab from the balls with contracts or Tim Cook is (surprise!) a massive moron.

Apple is a fucking pain to work with, but only when they're buying custom parts.

They would order a LOT of something custom, (that nobody else has designs to use,) wait till the order is complete, then cancel half the order, let the manufacturer hold them in stock till they're cheaper.

Why do you think there are notched screens popping up everywhere? It's excess orders LCD makers decided to sell to anyone instead of holding it for Apple.

Long history with this, IBM and LCD panel makers in particular. Apple didn't actually stop buying IBM chips, IBM stopped doing business with them, but that was alright with Apple because they had planned for that with backup x86 builds and a marketing spin on the move.

Note that on the same week as "The Switch" announcement where Jobs said PPC architecture would never be more efficient per watt than Intel, Jim Keller at P.A. Semi announced PWRficient, based on PPC, that hit 2GHz at 7watts.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PWRficient#CPU

I believe, personally, that Jobs bought P.A. Semi to save face about all the bullshit he spewed, aside from the benefits of getting these guys to design their phone and tablet chips.

That doesn't make sense, because those notches are always on different shapes and forms, and those panels aren't always oled.
Apple its like the chinamen: They like to save face.

It has to do with the cutting stage/process or something, it's a little late here (2:30 AM) and I'm a little too sleepy to dig around for it right now.

>improved 14-nanometer performance by 70 percent since it first launched.
>quad core vs hex core
>no mention of power draw curves

the absolute state of intel

I at least can trust you, because I can testify that every launch of an iMac, for example is followed by a bunch of launches of cheap Korean monitors, for example.
I still would like that Apple dumps Intel for AMD, mostly because Apple has the power to remove bad reputations of brands. That alone will remove a lot of mindshare from Intel.

Neat little calculator there. Found it and played around with it using wikichip's die dimensions for 14nm Ryzen gets 206 full-fat dies (using the 80% full fat yield figure running around).

Assuming a 300mm wafer size and all defect free chips (rounded to nearest whole) crammed into server CPU packages, that's 51 32c Epyc CPUs per wafer, just from the flawless dies.

If someone can get me the actual dimensions of the 12nm Zen die I can throw that in and see what AMD is getting with the new node.

According to the slides AMD didn't make use of the higher density to reduce die size, they left the extra space as blank silicon to improve signal integrity
There should be an improvement in yields

Same dimensions, but if you look at the traces inside, you'll see a bigger gap from the actual CPU "cores" inside and the things like memory controller are also smaller in each die.

It actually increases yield a little bit further, because there are actually areas where a defect would have no effect on the actual function of the chip.

Bigger gap how? Smaller cores in each die?

Ah ok. Now all I need is a yield number on the new dies so I can fiddle around with that. I know the 14nm were getting 80%.

Haha, amdpoos are grasping every rumour because are afraid of intel's multi core 5GHz CPUs
Just wait and see when intel improves on it's 10nm technology it will have best CPUs on the market!
Btw, 8700k is still best CPU you can get. Even amdrone's 12nm can't beat intels 14nm
That's a fact
Another fact: intel is superior company in every way having better engineers and much more money than AMDpoos
American product >>>>>>> chinese toys

>rumour
your boss said those things himself, these are quotes
you are extremely bad at damage control, i should be surprised at how you are still being paid for this, but given your employers current state, im not

Is Intel the new AMD?

Yes.
Their execution is a disaster.

Yeah, suuuure.

Attached: 5niggahhurtz.png (3671x2294, 2.83M)

>actually falling for low quality bait

>Not falling for bait on Jow Forums
Come on dude, you gotta collaborate to the thread's lifespan.