juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 17, 2014 2:52 pm wrote:
> David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on August 16, 2014 2:16 pm wrote:
> > juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 16, 2014 12:45 pm wrote:
> > > David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on August 16, 2014 11:27 am wrote:
> > > > > > I happen to know the differences between those two designs. I'm not really sure it's
> > > > > > going to translate into a significant performance delta. My guess is maybe 10%.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Care to explain how you got the 10% figure? It looks a bit low for me. Thanks
> > > >
> > > > My expertise in computer architecture and knowing the differences between the two designs.
> > > >
> > > > > > > Another key is that Intel process advantage will be reduced.
> > > > > > > Those server-class ARM SoCs that I >mentioned will
> > > > > > > be made on 14/16 nm FinFET. Broadwell-EP and Skylake-EP on 14nm FinFET will not have a full node >advantage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually they will. The foundry 16nm process will have substantially worse density. The minimum metal pitch
> > > > > > for the foundries is 64nm, vs. 52nm for Intel. That's about a 20% difference, which is quite significant.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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/
> > > >
> > > > Anyone who believes that doesn't know what is going on.
> > > >
> > > > If you look at Intel's 22nm high volume production vs. TSMC 20nm, there's about a two year gap (or more).
> > > >
> > > > Remember that what's important is comparing when Intel ships products to customers and when
> > > > TSMC customers ship comparable complexity products to customers, in similar volumes. TSMC
> > > > risk production (i.e., hey we got a good die per wafer!!!!) is not comparable to Intel production
> > > > (i.e., the factory is barfing out hundreds of thousands of good dice).
> > > >
> > > > Intel launched IVB in 2Q12.
> > > >
> > > > Apple will launch the new SoC in 3Q14.
> > > >
> > > > That's basically a two year gap.
> > > >
> > > > There's no indication that gap will narrow.
> > >
> > > There is evidence that it is not longer two years, see below.
> > >
> > > > > > I'm also rather skeptical that we'll see 16nm FinFET in production before the end of 2015.
> > > > > > TSMC won't be in high volume on 20nm till 3Q when the new iPhone comes out. I expect that
> > > > > > 16nm FinFET will take at least a year, and quite possibly more to hit high volume.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Get your facts correct: Broadwell parts will ship this year.
> > >
> > > Only the low-volume parts will do. Broadwell-K, -E, and -EP are delayed to Q4 2015.
> >
> > BDW-EP wasn't delayed. HSW-EP is coming out in Q3 or Q4, and BDW-EP
> > will be a year later. That's not a delay, that's on-time.
> >
> > I agree that certain mobile and desktop parts were delayed.
>
> Ok, but the point continues being that Broadwell-EP is scheduled
> for Q4 2015 and will compete against X-Gene v3, Vulcan, and K12.

I'm not sure if BDW-EP will be in Q3 or Q4. But that's when I expect customers to be able to buy quantities of BDW-EP.

I would also question your latter statement. I suspect we'll see 16nm ARM-based server chips shipping in volume to customers about 2-3 quarters behind Intel's E5s.

However, Intel will release Denverton and the Xeon E3 and "SoC" versions of Broadwell in 2015 (probably earlier in the year).

So the landscape is quite complex because Intel has a very broad server portfolio.

> > > > 2. TSMC may be making 16nm wafers, but I don't care about that (hint: Intel is making
> > > > 10nm wafers now...). I care when TSMC customers are shipping products in high volume
> > > > to customers (and I don't count FPGAs because they are very different).
> > > >
> > >
> > > TSMC 16nm is on risk production now. Products are expected in 2015--2016. Thus
> > > ARM 16nm server products will be competing against Intel 14nm Server products.
> >
> > If you have a subscription to MPR, you should be able to see one of my articles
> > on proces technology. Let me put together an outline for you about TSMC 20nm:
> >
> > 1Q13: Risk production
> > 3Q13: FPGA production
> > 1Q14: Production
> > 2Q14: First 20nm products sold (TSMC modem in very limited supply to Korea)
> > 3Q14: Predicted high volume for Apple SoC
> >
> > So judging by history, it will take 6Q for TSMC to get from risk production to actual production. Now I can
> > believe that it will be a bit shorter since they are using the same metal stack, so call it 4Q. That means
> > no high volume products on 16nm till 3Q15...and to be honest, it probably won't be server products.
> >
> > Server products have much longer validation cycles, so I am skeptical
> > that any 16nm server products will be sold prior to 2016.
> >
> > David
>
> History is not an strong argument. Despite flaweless execution of last years., Intel is now having delay
> problems with Broadwell and problems with TSX.

History is an incredibly strong guide to the future. I've been hearing "We will catch up with Intel on manufacturing" for 15 years from various competitors. It was bullshit then, and I have yet to hear why it isn't bullshit now. Why is TSMC any more competent today than they were 5 years ago? Do you think Intel is less competent now than they were before? Or do you think that their latest problems will impact the whole industry?

My guess is that Intel ran into some nasty issues, and TSMC will hit them sooner or later.

Also, TSX is irrelevant to manufacturing, stop making deceptive arguments.

>Using recent history we couldn't anything of this.

If you want to ignore history, then there's no basis for any real discussion. For all you know, Intel might decide they want to go fabless next year. Of course, if you consider history - you'd realize that Intel is first and foremost a manufacturing company.

> As mentioned before TSMC 16nm is in risk production now. First products are expected
> for late 2015 and early 2016. X-Gene v3, Vulcan, and K12 are expected for 2016.

Except you need to account for the longer time to market for server processors. There's a fair bit of extra validation that goes into them.

David