You are currently viewing SemiWiki as a guest which gives you limited access to the site. To view blog comments and experience other SemiWiki features you must be a registered member. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free so please, join our community today!




Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Intel's fake news

  1. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    22
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 17
    Given: 39
    Quote Originally Posted by lefty View Post
    Intel have announced that their 8th generation PC line up will be mostly on 14nm:Intel's 8th-gen Core CPUs will again be 14nm - TechSpot
    Intel's 2017 10nm is basically a "paper launch" to save face and look like they are not behind TSMC and Co. It won't be for another year before 10nm yields are at a level where they can use it economically on their high volume products.
    Yep, that will turn tick-tock into tick-tock-tock-tock. And I just saw a benchmark of a 32nm i3 Sandy Bridge from 2011 vs. a 14nm Kaby Lake i3 from 2017 (both sold at USD 120 when launched) and in most benchmarks the Sandy Bridge managed to stay only some 35% below the Kaby Lake and at its worst it showed half the speed.

    Now, if Moore's law is doing well, why in 6 years from sandy bridge to kabylake we see "only" a 1.5-2.0x speed improvement? Is Intel raising their gross margins in the sense that they are using the lower cost/transistor to improve their financials rather than to improve their product's performance? Maybe they are doing it to counter the increasing need for more and more R&D and CAPEX?

    That (and the lack of real competition) could explain why we are not seeing Intel deliver as much as we grew used to expect.

    On the other hand, it makes 2017 even more exciting, maybe Intel has left a lot of room for Ryzen, OpenPower and ARM to flourish. Let's wait and see.

    0 Not allowed!
     

  2. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    1
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0
    What everybody seems to miss is that Intel's "tick-tock" power-hungry 7nm is not the same as TSMC's (or Samsung's) low-power CMOS 7nm. Intel's announced $7bn investment in Fab 42 here in Chandler AZ will be (in my opinion) for low-power CMOS, so they don't have to go to TSMC for their 4G modems (as they do now) and they will undoubtedly grow it into a major foundry to compete directly with TSMC and Samsung. That's also likely why they did the major licensing of ARM's recipe. So, Intel's Apples vs. Oranges comparison is total BS.

    0 Not allowed!
     

  3. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    30
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 2
    Given: 0
    The anal_ysts allowed the Intel management talking about the revenues and profits like the coming new AMD chips either do not exist or won't affect anything at all, the proof of how stupid, short-sighted those bean-counting monkeys are : )

    0 Not allowed!
     

  4. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    30
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 2
    Given: 0
    The presentation was for the Street monkeys, not for people like you or me : )

    0 Not allowed!
     

  5. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    30
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 2
    Given: 0
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Nenni View Post
    Here is a transcript. I found the whole thing less than transparent even though they said it would be transparent. I guess it is subjective but I was seriously disappointed in the entire day in regards to the information provided. Hopefully AMD will provide Intel with a long overdue wake-up call.
    "I was seriously disappointed in the entire day in regards to the information provided."

    It's for the anal_ysts, so as long as they were happy ...

    In addition, it's great for AMD investors, the more denials the better and the greater ROI!

    0 Not allowed!
     

  6. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    3
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0
    ....consider this........Intel (Holt...now gone) at their Nov 2013 dog and pony show showed 4 so called 14nm processes.....all with differing gate densities.....saying the least dense process is used for high performance (ex server) applications and the most dense for something like mobile SOC. First....how can 4 processes with differing gate densities all be called the same thing....in this case 14nm?.........AMD Ryzen on Samsung 14nm LPP at Global Foundries is 195mm^2 for 4.8B transistors. Intel Broadwell on 14nm (must be least dense one) is 246mm^2 for 3.2B Transistors. ANY Intel claim (past/present and future) regarding process density is pure BS. I suspect Intel has NEVER shipped any product using their so called densest 14nm process but uses metrics from it to DUPE the analysts. Intel should be called out in no uncertain terms and EXPOSED for the liars they are.

    0 Not allowed!
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •