Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Launches Cooper Lake Xeons CPUs, New Optane Persistent Memory + SSDs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
    At the highest level, intel launching new processors in 2020 that use the same process node as Broadwell which shipped in Sept 2014 means that at $10,000 per chip, the profit margin is substantial. Fab facilities are extremely expensive to build. Launching new product on a six year old process and charging a premium price for it raises a lot of eyebrows. Launching top tier CPU's in 2020 that are still in 14 nm also demonstrates how far behind intel has fallen. In an attempt to obfuscate this fact, look up a few processors on the intel ark web site. Notice how they have omitted the "Lithography: 14nm" line item from their more recent products, whereas this line is present in previous generation products? Sounds like deception by omission to me.
    14 nm means just one thing - the widths of the smallest slits in the photolitography masks (aka the feature size). Most importantly, it does not represent the size of a transistor (actually, even the size of a transistor is not a fair benchmark, typically the size of a functional cell, such as the area of one bit memory register, is a much better benchmark). You can have widely different densities for the same "nanometers" in fact. That wasn't the case a decade ago, but it is definitely the case now.

    Current (2020) 14 nm Intel technology is not the same as the one in 2014. If I remember correctly, it's more than 50% denser in fact.

    Is Intel behind AMD in this case? Yes. Is it fair to say that 14nm 2020 technology is the same as 2014 technology? No.

    Does it make that much of a difference to you (in terms of things such as real performance per Watt)? I really don't think so.

    Of course, feel free to prove me wrong with actual data.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
      At the highest level, intel launching new processors in 2020 that use the same process node as Broadwell which shipped in Sept 2014 means that at $10,000 per chip, the profit margin is substantial. Fab facilities are extremely expensive to build. Launching new product on a six year old process and charging a premium price for it raises a lot of eyebrows. Launching top tier CPU's in 2020 that are still in 14 nm also demonstrates how far behind intel has fallen. In an attempt to obfuscate this fact, look up a few processors on the intel ark web site. Notice how they have omitted the "Lithography: 14nm" line item from their more recent products, whereas this line is present in previous generation products? Sounds like deception by omission to me.
      See for instance this page:

      https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/14_nm_l..._process#Intel

      Unfortunately (TTBOMK) we don't have an updated density chart. Nonetheless, take a look at

      High Density (HD) cell at 14nm, for Intel in 2014, was 0.0499 µm². For IBM/Global Foundries it is 0.0810 µm². Same nm, Intel has 1.6x the density, for instance. Not as drastic for High Performance cells, but my point still stands - same nanometers, significantly different densities.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by vladpetric View Post
        Is Intel behind AMD in this case? Yes. Is it fair to say that 14nm 2020 technology is the same as 2014 technology? No.

        Does it make that much of a difference to you (in terms of things such as real performance per Watt)? I really don't think so.
        Yes the plusses in the '14nm++++' moniker indicate incremental improvements over the original 14nm in 2014, that much is widely understood. However, If there's no appreciable difference in performance per watt as you claim, why then is intel pursuing a newer smaller 10nm process? Clearly there is some significant competitive advantage to be had with the newer smaller process. The claims of "intel is behind" and "it doesn't make much difference" are mutually exclusive. In any event, I do agree that intel has done some impressive refinement of their 14 nm process over the years.
        Last edited by torsionbar28; 19 June 2020, 03:40 PM.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
          Yes the plusses in the '14nm++++' moniker indicate incremental improvements over the original 14nm in 2014, that much is widely understood. However, If there's no appreciable difference in performance per watt as you claim, why then is intel pursuing a newer smaller 10nm process? Clearly there is some significant competitive advantage to be had with the newer smaller process. The claims of "intel is behind" and "it doesn't make much difference" are mutually exclusive. In any event, I do agree that intel has done some impressive refinement of their 14 nm process over the years.
          Maybe I wasn't clear enough - I'm saying that the difference in performance per watt between TOTL, current Intel processors and AMD processors is not that high, despite a seemingly huge jump (14nm vs 7nm).

          The difference in power consumption between 14nm and 14nm++ is actually quite high. From the page I cited:

          <<A third improved process, "14nm++", is set to begin in late 2017 and will further allow for +23-24% higher drive current for 52% less power vs the original 14nm process. The 14nm++ process also appear to have slightly relaxed poly pitch of 84 nm (from 70 nm). It's unknown what impact, if any, this will have on the density>>

          52% lower power is not just an incremental improvement. Typically that was achieved by a completely new manufacturing process.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by vladpetric View Post
            Why do you care that it's only 14nm?
            because 14nm was obsolete few years ago
            Originally posted by vladpetric View Post
            And do you even know what that means when it comes to semiconductor technology?
            i'm sure you don't know what that means, so i can educate you. it means precisely this: 14 nm memory cell takes quarter of space of 28 nm memory cell. that's how those numbers are defined.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by vladpetric View Post
              My comment wasn't addressed to Intel.
              your comment was informed by intel propaganda

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by vladpetric View Post
                14 nm means just one thing - the widths of the smallest slits in the photolitography masks (aka the feature size).
                only in your imagination.
                Originally posted by vladpetric View Post
                Most importantly, it does not represent the size of a transistor (actually, even the size of a transistor is not a fair benchmark, typically the size of a functional cell, such as the area of one bit memory register, is a much better benchmark).
                so you should be happy that it represents relative area of memory cell(relative to other nm numbers)
                Originally posted by vladpetric View Post
                You can have widely different densities for the same "nanometers" in fact. That wasn't the case a decade ago, but it is definitely the case now.
                in your imaginary world it will translate into widely different prices per transistor and make some production uncompetitive. like intel's in real world
                Originally posted by vladpetric View Post
                Current (2020) 14 nm Intel technology is not the same as the one in 2014. If I remember correctly, it's more than 50% denser in fact.
                and intel just forgot call it 12 or 11 nm ?
                Originally posted by vladpetric View Post
                Of course, feel free to prove me wrong with actual data.
                you didn't show any actual data

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by pal666 View Post
                  because 14nm was obsolete few years ago
                  i'm sure you don't know what that means, so i can educate you. it means precisely this: 14 nm memory cell takes quarter of space of 28 nm memory cell. that's how those numbers are defined.
                  That used to be the case above 20nm. Not anymore.

                  Global Foundries 7nm doesn't offer 4x versus Global Foundries 14nm.



                  Global foundries 7nm SRAM, High Density: 0.0269 µm²



                  Global foundries 14nm SRAM, High Density: 0.081

                  Rather, a factor of 3.

                  Within the same context, an Intel 14nm SRAM is 0.049µm² (so Intel 14nm is roughly half way in between GF 14nm and GF 7nm).

                  Again, nanometers are the smallest feature size, not the size of a transistor or a memory cell.

                  It is highly typical of a**holes like you to perpetrate propaganda without looking at the data, and then claim that the opposing side is doing just that. Reminds me of the person in the whitehouse. Please, if I can I'd rather avoid interactions with you in any way possible. This website sadly doesn't have a block button.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
                    only in your imagination.
                    so you should be happy that it represents relative area of memory cell(relative to other nm numbers)
                    in your imaginary world it will translate into widely different prices per transistor and make some production uncompetitive. like intel's in real world
                    and intel just forgot call it 12 or 11 nm ?
                    you didn't show any actual data
                    nanometers are the smallest feature size, which are correlated with, but don't directly indicate density. And I wasn't talking to you, but rather to a civilized member of the human species. Please stop.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by vladpetric View Post
                      Unfortunately (TTBOMK) we don't have an updated density chart.
                      you could cry for intel 14 nm with string of pluses here https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/File:7nm_densities.svg

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X