Slashdot Mirror
Intel's 10nm 'Cannon Lake' Processors Won't Arrive Until Late 2019 (digitaltrends.com)
At the company's second quarter 2018 financial results conference call, Intel chief engineering officer Venkata Renduchintala said the "Cannon Lake" 10mn processors won't appear in products until the 2019 holiday season. "The systems on shelves that we expect in holiday 2019 will be client systems, with data center products to follow shortly after," Renduchintala said. Interim CEO Robert Swan went on to tout the company's "very good lineup" of 14nm products. Digital Trends reports: "Recall that 10nm strives for a very aggressive density improvement target beyond 14nm, almost 2.7x scaling," Renduchintala said during the call. "And really, the challenges that we're facing on 10nm is delivering on all the revolutionary modules that ultimately deliver on that program." Although he acknowledged that pushing back 10nm presents a "risk and a degree of delay" in the company's road map, Intel is quite pleased with the "resiliency" of its 14nm roadmap. He said the company delivered an excess of 70 percent performance improvement over the last few years. Meanwhile, Intel's 10nm process should be in an ideal state to mass produce chips towards the end of 2019.
Intel's Cannon Lake chip is essentially a shrink of its seventh-generation "Kaby Lake" processor design. Given the previous launch window, the resulting chips presumably fell under the company's eighth-generation banner despite the older design. But with mass production pushed back to late 2019, the 10nm chips will fall under Intel's ninth-generation umbrella along with CPUs based on its upcoming "Ice Lake" design. Intel claims that its 10nm chips will provide 25 percent increased performance over their 14nm counterparts. Even more, they will supposedly consume 50 percent less power than their 14nm counterparts.
Intel's Cannon Lake chip is essentially a shrink of its seventh-generation "Kaby Lake" processor design. Given the previous launch window, the resulting chips presumably fell under the company's eighth-generation banner despite the older design. But with mass production pushed back to late 2019, the 10nm chips will fall under Intel's ninth-generation umbrella along with CPUs based on its upcoming "Ice Lake" design. Intel claims that its 10nm chips will provide 25 percent increased performance over their 14nm counterparts. Even more, they will supposedly consume 50 percent less power than their 14nm counterparts.
Given that "ntel's Cannon Lake chip is essentially a shrink of its seventh-generation "Kaby Lake" processor design" what execution silo bugs are currently present in the designs?
"almost 2.7x scaling": Do they have to scale the thickness at the same time as the mask pitch?
And you will die in your mother's basement.
It is amazing to see and a sign the PC is the new mainframe and not as cutting edge.
10nm has been out for cell phones for years. By the time Intel has finally got it right AMD will be having 7nm Ryzen2 CPUs on the market. Samsung and global foundaries have risen to take over blindsiding Intel. I am glad I don't own any Intel stock.
Intel did release some i3 10nm. The reason why is the cores had so many defects. On Arstechnica a guy who owned a shop seen a huge failure rate as well after a few months with the chips. I don't blame Intel for halting production and trying again next year.
No one would have believed this 15 years ago.
http://saveie6.com/
And a few patches down they are going to be 30% faster than the previous generation. Meaning about the same as a Pentium II.
They should just give up on this and start outsourcing it like most other companies... AMD is producing 7nm chips right now and deliveries to OEM are happening in Q42018... So by the time Intel gets their 10nm to market, AMD will have had 7nm for a year.
Intel has really hit a brick wall this time...
I told you, previous node size was delayed by a year or two, and then people expected the next one to be on time?
10nm is even more difficult, so of course it's going to be delayed too.
Intel is so turn of the century. Java, Windows, Intel, 3dfx, Solaris, Flash, Real Player, so long, bye!
If they are merely shrinking the existing architecture then that means they still haven't fixed the fundamental issue behind the Meltdown vulnerability. Anybody that wants fast I/O rates should avoid Intel like the plague until further notice.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Samsung, Transmeta and GlobalFoundries are moving to 7nm, but Intel can't even manage 10nm. Maybe their $300million initiative to ensure 50/50 representation at all levels of the company wans't such a good idea after all.
Who'd have thought that employing people based on their genitalia rather than their skills would end so badly...
You forgot to list Slashdot among those failed .com-Bust technologies.
and all intel can do is say this. Hahahahah! There's some stompin' goin' owwwwnn, and it ain't just intel's spectres making a mess of any intel system you have, or will buy in years to come.
I'll die in your mother's basement, rock hard, of a heart attack perhaps.
will apple go AMD or delay mac pro to 2020?
> merely shrinking the existing architecture then that means they still haven't fixed the fundamental issue behind the Meltdown vulnerability.
That fundamental issues won't be changed in the next ten years, if ever. They can either keep playing whack-a-mole with different hardware and microcode side-effects, or you can add a very simple (and slow) separate CPU for security-sensitive operations.
Current CPUs are very complex, with out-of-order execution, speculative execution based on branch prediction, multiple concurrent threads of execution, various different types of caches, etc. All of this complexity is there for a good reason - it makes a huge improvement in performance. For that reason, it's not going away, we're not going back the 8086. All the complexity also means operations will effect caches and predictive microcode and other things, so CPU operations will have side effects. Side effects mean you get Spectre and Meltdown style vulnerabilities.
A very simple CPU which doesn't have any modern optimizations (complexity), with a single core running one thread at a time, could be much more secure in this regard. It would also be much slower, so it wouldn't be good as the main general-purpose CPU. It would need to be used to offload things like handling private keys that are particularly sensitive.
"He said the company delivered an excess of 70 percent performance improvement over the last few years."
I would say 7 or more years is quite a bit more than a few.
You can come in the basement and fuck my psycho mom all you want. You will regret it.
Dividing 8 cores by 8 gives 8 times faster to produce these 1 core dies. Also it reduces the TDP by 8.
Further proof that Moore's Law is dead. Of course, people hate to hear it, because that means that many things they dreamed of in the digital world won't happen. From now on you can expect only marginal improvement in digital computing year over year.
Those are whack-a-mole. Site isolation helps *reduce* the impact of Spectre attacks that happen to be done in JavaScript, in the same way that eating fruit reduces your risk from a heart attack . It doesn't do anything for the majority of Spectre-class attacks.
Similarly, so long as you have speculative execution, you're running code that wasn't supposed to ever run. Running code will have physical and microarchitecture side effects, too. Just as writing to one memory location has a side-effect on other memory locations (see Rowhammer).
You can play whack-a-mole patching up specific exploits after the bad guys start using them, but anything as complex as Core i7 is going to have "interesting" interactions that clever people can use in interesting ways. Hacking has been around long enough that there are no standard, well-known methods for turning minor issues like "can occasionally read one bit from memory" into owning the system.
That should read:
Hacking has been around long enough that there are NOW standard, well-known methods for turning minor issues into major ones. Something that doesn't seem like a big deal (guesstimating whether a given value might be cached) is leveraged into "read any memory location you want". Spectre is an example. If you read the basic vulnerability, it seems like not a really big deal. Hackers came up with ways to make it a big deal, though, to turn something small into something much bigger.
All I read was "so long, bye" - the rest is just made-up words.
#DeleteFacebook
Linux still doesn't even have proper Skylake support. What the hell. Linux won't run on really old hardware either. Linux has regressed so much in the last 10 years it's not even funny. It used to be the first to support new hardware and legacy stuff was better than anything else. My how times have changed. Nowadays you have to use Windows if you want reasonable performance on old hardware, something that was considered insanity just a few years ago.
CannonLake already "officially" shipped in tiny volumes. Intel will probably stop selling those soon in favor of whatever 14nm++/+++ replacement products they use as a stopgap until 10nm+ is ready (WhiskyLake? Some other crap? It's getting hard to care).
Q3/Q4 2019 is when IceLake comes out. First to market will PROBABLY be the U and Y products, e.g. mobile chips. No idea how long it will take them to get IceLake H and S onto the market, or even if they will use those designations by that time. Current roadmaps show "server" IceLake variants in Q2 2020? Maybe? We'll see. Sapphire Rapids was supposed to hit in 2020, after all . . .
In any case, CannonLake is dead along with the 10nm process. You will see IceLake in late 2019 on 10nm+, which will have architectural improvements vs SkyLake/KabyLake/CoffeeLake, including (hopefully) hardware-level fixes for Meltdown. Spectre may not be fixed until Sapphire Rapids, and Sapphire Rapids may be server-only.
Yes, the butler lives down there. He has always seemed rather effeminate.
> if the code you run is properly sandboxed so you don't have to care what is run.
If you are talking about a script, that runs inside of a program,that runs in a process, that runs inside of an operating system, you can model things as "kind of like a kids sandbox". You can implement this metaphorical sandbox using the idealized model of a simple computer that is exposed to C++, the language the browser is written in.
There is no sand inside the CPU. In the microcode, there are no processes. The microcode deals with actual hardware registers, where each bit is six actual transistors. When they are used, they actually get hot, and heat up the other transistors which are other registers. In the microcode, you're not dealing with an idealized model of a simple computer, you're dealing with real, physical parts of an actual Core i7 CPU. There is no "kinda like a sandbox" or "kinda like" anything, there are actual logic gates made of real transistors.
The metaphors of processes, their assigned memory, and all thay are far away. Rather, it copies bits from one transistor to another, which represent amd64 instructions - the highest abstraction you have at that level. (Instructions are things like "copy register A to register B). Only an endless stream of instructions. There can be no sandbox, because there is no sand. It's been burned into silicon now, into actual transistors.
After Intel's laughable Netburst initiative (shilled by Slashdot at the time as 'genius'), Intel gave up the 'very long pipeline' race to 10GHz, and went back to the Pentium 3 architecture, that they crossed with AMD's advances used in the excellent AMD x64 chips of the time. Legal cos of cross-patent agreements between the two.
Pentium 3 + AMD tech = 'CORE', the horrid name Intel has used to describe all its architectures since Netburst (at first core 1/2, and now 'core'. Despite the confusing name, all 'core' Intel chips have one common feature- ZERO hardware protection of interthread memory access.
On a multi-threaded chip, you are supposed to use lock and key. A thread has a 'key' (thread id), and this key must be used to unlock a 'chest' containing any RAM access.
Lock and key takes a LOT of transistors. A lot of energy. And significant time delay added to RAM access. By secretly dropping this CS requirement, Intel gained a massive power and speed advantage over AMD.
Today, thanks to a genius CPU architect, AMD's zen has lock and key, and less than 10% disadvantage in IPC for software compiled to be optimum on Intel's core architecture (most commercial software). If software were optimised for zen (which can issue multiple complex instructions while Intel is optimised for 1 complex and 3 simple instructions) zen would have a greater than 10% advantage over Intel.
AMD's last downside is a 700Mhz gap with Intel (when both are clocked to sane max). Most chips sold do not show this gap, of course, since very few Intel chips are ultra high-end. Intel offers far more cores (and hyper-threading per core) than Intel per dollar.
Early 2019, AMD's Zen 2 (confusingly the new AMD zen parts from this year are zen+) will pass Intel on IPC, and almost catch up on max clocks. All this remember with zen having 'lock and key' and no Intel part til 2021 at the earliest fixing meltdown and spectre.
When IBM slected Intel to provide the dreadful 16-bit processor for IBM's home PC, every other chip company had better 16-bit designs, and some vastly better (Motorola). IBM selected Intel precisely because its chip was so awful (and thus didn't compete with IBM proprietary hardware). However Intel eventually used the mega profits from being the heart of the now generic PC design to create the excellent 486/Pentium 1, just before Intel illegally stole RISC tech from all major players to design the Pentium Pro/2 (for which Intel later paid billions in fines).
Since that date Intel's 'lead' has been a pure consequence of Intel outspending the competition by thousands to one in R+D (and even then AMD has had the lead over Intel on at least 3 periods).
Intel's final advantage was a 'process' lead- but as this article points out, that lead is GONE- TSMC, Samsung and GF are now ahead of Intel. Unless you game at 120 Hz, there is literally no reason to buy Intel today. Intel was always a lousy company. Now its social engineering policies have sunk the entire company.
PS can't use 'less than' and 'greater than' symbols in my text? WTF slashdot.
Why would I want a computer that has the CPU power of a mere phone?
Suppose that a task can be broken down into two parts. On a single core, part A takes 20 seconds on a typical CPU, part B takes 80 seconds. Part B is fully parallelizable. Part A is sequential. What is the minimum amount of time the task can take with an infinite number of cores?
Suppose you have a BILLION cores, each much simpler than a Core i7, but ten times slower. What would be the total time?
Intel is playing with cobalt layers and narrower pitch.
Here is an interesting discussion on the topic by people who know for more than I:
https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/f293/intel-10nm-process-problems-my-thoughts-subject-10535.html
Coffee Lake -> Canon Lake -> Ice Lake :-)
========> Iced Coffee Lake
The little lake that couldn't.
Intel you STOLE from us and have given us shitty slow processors you said were fast and awesome.
YOU OWE US MONEY INTEL!!
This is disappointing, and no amount of marketing spin can change the fact that 10nm was supposed to be launched in 2016, and personally I would not bet on it actually being available before the end of 2019. So this is a three year delay at best, for a technology transition that should have taken 3 years. Of course tick tock is dead, and maybe we are approaching physical limits.
And it is predictable, because Intel needs to fix the whole Spectre family of bugs. This will need a radically new CPU architecture, not just minor improvements in scheduling and dispatching. Current "patches" are not really the correct answer.
If Intel messes this up, AMD has a good chance of getting properly back into the game.
This is a major shift in the power balance of the CPU business.
For many years, one of the key things that kept Intel on top is that they were the best in the business at making chips. Not at designing an architecture, and not always at executing that architecture (like the era of Pentium 4 vs Athlon 64), but their chip fabrication technology was on top.
But now they find themselves in the unaccustomed position of playing catch-up. Samsung and TSMC are already shipping 7nm, with GlobalFoundries close behind, while Intel won't hit volume production of its 10nm process for another year. (Intel's 10nm is about the same density as the 7nm from those other companies despite the larger feature size so a direct comparison is fair.) This is the biggest business challenge that Intel has faced in a long time; I think they will find a way through it, but they may never return to the same level of market dominance.
And how exactly will performing those access control chicks affect the contents of the L1 and L2 caches, and therefore their hit rate? Further to the point, leaving caches aside, what does that do for AVX state?
You're posting this in comments to an article about yet another Spectre-class attack which affects AMD - one that is network accessible and has nothing whatsoever to do with any JIT.
You're focusing on just one of the seven Spectre related CVEs currently known.