Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on August 17, 2014 4:10 pm wrote:
> David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on August 17, 2014 3:29 pm wrote:
> > Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on August 17, 2014 1:45 pm wrote:
> > > Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on August 17, 2014 1:15 pm wrote:
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > > Most desirable by whom? By Apply, which is ~5% of Intel's revenues or by 95%?
> > > > I'd guess, 95% do not care about Broadwell laptop and desktop parts
> > > > as long as they are not measurably cheaper than Haswell parts.
> > > > On the other end, Broadwell-Y can be interesting to such important Intel OEM partners as Lenovo, ASUS,
> > > > Toshiba, Dell, Samsung, LG. May be, even to HP and Acer, also this two giants appear more inert.
> > > > It would also please Microsoft, which is *not* important OEM
> > > > partner, but very important partner in other aspects.
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Most Intel's partners are in no hurry for 14nm.
> > > > The only one that is real hurry is Altera. And even Altera will not lose much
> > > > as long as Xilinx is late too. They will just not win as much as they hoped.
> > >
> > > This is the last post I will make on this subject because those involved keep changing the argument.
> > > We have (as an apparent fact) that mainstream Broadwell is significantly delayed. So why?
> >
> > No, I think you just aren't piecing EVERYTHING together. You're seeing pieces, but not the whole.
> >
> > > If one argues that it's because Intel has hit the point where complexity is hurting
> > > it in the Broadwell design, one is told no, the delay is because of the process.
> >
> > The delay was definitely due to 14nm yields. It's not a broadwell-specific issue.
> >
> > > If one argues that the process is unhealthy, one is told no, the delay is because OEMs
> > > don't want the parts. (Unclear then, why they will want them more in 6/11 months?)
> >
> > The process was unhealthy. Now it's fine.
> >
> > > If one argues that the process then is not much of an advance on 22nm (since it's not resulting in parts
> > > that are desirable) and so doesn't represent any real process advantage, one is told no, the problem is
> > > that the Broadwell architecture is suboptimal, and it takes time to design a more optimal architecture.
> > > And so we are back at the initial argument ---
> >
> > No, the issue is that the BDW architecture doesn't improve much for desktop. The CPU
> > is about hte same speed, and IGPs aren't considered valuable for desktop. So 14nm is
> > mostly valuable for mobile (and server). That's why Intel nixed socketed BDW.
> >
> > 14nm is an advantage over 22nm, but more in terms of power and performance at low power.
> > I don't know if performance at maximum voltage will improve much. However, there should
> > be an advantage at lower voltage levels. That helps the power sensitive guys the most
> > (hypothetically, say frequency increases by 30% @ 0.7V and 10% at 1.0V).
>
> Think through what you are saying here, David.
> The pattern since Nehalem has been that successive Intel CPUs are only about 5% faster than their
> predecessor; the process (and micro-architecture) improvements have almost all gone into lower
> power. Broadwell is not some strange deviation from the past, it is the natural extension of
> this past. But you are claiming that this improvement balance is no longer desirable.

Are you sure about Nehalem and Sandy Bridge? Because claim is wrong as written:
http://techreport.com/review/20188/intel-sandy-bridge-core-processors
(Just example, one could just include dozen of tests across time span to now to show miss)