Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on August 17, 2014 12:37 pm wrote:
> tarlinian (tarlinian.delete@this.gmail.com) on August 17, 2014 10:40 am wrote:
> > Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on August 17, 2014 10:06 am wrote:
> > > Aaron Spink (aaronspink.delete@this.notearthlink.net) on August 16, 2014 9:10 pm wrote:
> > > > juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 16, 2014 2:56 am wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And a ~50% density advantage is not "a full node advantage" as I mentioned just
> > > > > above. Intel _traditional_ process advantage has vanished, as others agree,
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/components/microprocessors-and-dsps/whats-new-14nm-processors-intel-2014-08/
> > > > >
> > > > Lol, and if you believe that, I've got a couple bridges in the New York
> > > > and San Francisco area codes for sale, cheap at twice the price!
> > > >
> > > > > TSMC claims _10nm_ risk production for late 2015. 16nm is being produced now (check above link). ARM server
> > > > > 16nm parts will be available during 2015--2016. Broadwell has been delayed again to late 2015.
> > > > >
> > > > I don't believe that anyone in the industry has actually believed TSMC's public roadmaps
> > > > for at least a decade. Here's my personal handy decoder ring for TSMC process speak:
> > > >
> > > > Risk Production = initial recipe, pretty much guaranteed not to work.
> > > > Early Production = We think it might actually work now but like
> > > > only every other wafer, give us at least another year or two
> > > > Volume Production = We've almost hit what everyone calls risk production
> > > > Mature Process = Early production
> > > > Last generation process = Volume production!
> > > > Obsolete process = Mature Process.
> > > >
> > > > If you keep this handy decoder ring in mind, then TSMC's process roadmap
> > > > seems to make sense. Probably just an issue of things getting lost in translation
> > > > somewhere between engineering speak, management speak, et al.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I have zero experience with fabs. But as an outsider, one can hardly mock
> > > TSMC for this when Intel appears to be doing the exact same thing.
> > >
> > > What exactly is the difference between Intel's "14nm is doing just fine, we'll have some
> > > Broadwell-Y chips to sell you soon, and, BTW, the mass market 14nm Broadwells will come
> > > out in July 2015" and Samsung or TSMC's "16nm is doing just fine, we'll have some specialty
> > > chip to sell you soon, and, BTW, the mass market A9 will come out in Sept 2015"?
> > >
> >
> > I would say Aaron exaggerates TSMC's marketing spin a bit, especially since there
> > isn't anyone else who is obliged to attempt to market their manufacturing.
> >
> > Comparing low volume production for TSMC and Intel is a
> > bit silly. You are aware that even Broadwell-Y alone
> > is much more complex than the specialty chips we're talking
> > about for TSMC (basically FPGAs running at maybe
> > 1 kwspm?)? TSMC claimed volume production of 20 nm started in January and we've seen 1 rather low volume
> > consumer product (Qualcomm 9x35 modem in a Korea only version of the S5 LTE-A version) on the market with
> > chips from 20 nm. Admittedly this may be due to Apple buying most of their capacity, but Qualcomm's roadmap
> > said that sampling of 20 nm SoCs would only begin in 2H 2014 with product shipments in 1H 2015.
>
> My point was more on the Intel side than the TSMC side. I cannot understand why no-one thinks
> it absolutely BIZARRE that, in a process that is supposedly debugged and ready, Intel cannot
> ship for six months/eleven months, the most desirable CPUs for that process and is, instead,
> limiting itself to a novelty chip that is unlikely to sell in large quantities.
> (Sure, maybe Intel knows something we don't, and the world is soon going to be awash in devices that are clones
> of either Surface Pro or Yoga, only with somewhat lower performance. But that strikes me as unlikely...)
>
> People seem quite happy to say that Intel's 14nm is "ready and running" without
> accepting what this scheduling seems to be telling us about the true situation.
>

OEMs not wanted Broadwell in 2014, simple and plain. A not so amazing gain in cpu performance does not justify a change of plataform in a situation of big pile of unsold Haswells. The new GPU seems nice but actual AMD offering is so weak that there isn't reason to change.
Intel is sandbagging on 14nm this is the reality. In october last year Intel said "yields: problem solved" desktop parts in Q1/2014, we haven't see them.
Now we are in August 2014 and Intel is saying that the yields are proceding good......two times in two years??? we are mad max???
I pretty believe that 2014 Intel main goal is to refine the 14nm for low power and some slides seems to comfirm this. It is not a casuality that the first part shipped is a very low power SKU, obviously !! Intel has sold "very few" 22nm Y parts, there are only four five good devices sporting them.

In a landscape of bored OEMs, Intel is focusing on the "hole" in it's processor line. In a recent conference call Brian Krzanich said that Skylake will be out when OEMs will ask for something new (read as their mountain of unsold "desktop" Haswells will be down).
Fortunately Laptops and Convertibles are selling well so likely Intel will respect its roadmap this time for (2+2) and (2+3) mobile parts.
Trust me "standard" 14nm process was fine in Q1 this year. (look, in the slides there is a note about a standard 14nm process)

ps. and about little cores??? LOL Intel barely sells Baytrails at zero dollars, tell me a single reason to ramp in production with 14nm parts that nobody wants to pay at the right price to remunerate the expensive finer process.