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.
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/
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.
> 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.
At this point it looks like Intel needs a major re-design of its CPUs to mitigate all the Spectre variants and associated issues. Since they are not doing that (cheaper to spread FUD about the competition and downplay the problems, not enough people suing them) the best thing you can do now is buy AMD.
AMD CPUs are better for many reasons anyway.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
will apple go AMD or delay mac pro to 2020?
When was the last time Apple cared one shit about the performance of their "Pro" products? They will slap whatever Intel has that sounds in it, or will replace it with a mobile processor of their own making, because they just don't care..
> 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.
AMD CPUs are better for many reasons anyway.
Yeah, unless you need the best single-threaded performance available.
Quit being a zealot. Use the right tool for the job at hand.
They got ahead of the competition through anticompetitive business practices, and by deliberately compromising security. You can call that clever tricks, but I call it sociopathic behavior.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Clock for clock Ryzens and modern Intels are very similar in single threaded tasks, while Ryzens significantly outperform then in multi-threaded tasks as long as it isn't gaming (see Ashes of the Singularity benchmarks, which arguably might have the best multi-threading of any game out there).
Keeping in mind that your Ryzen 2 won't clock higher than 4.3GHz in a sustainable scenario that's what you need to shoot for in your Intel. That's for example when you can compare an R5 2600X with an i5-8600(non-K), where the latter also allows you to overclock to 4.3GHz on all cores given the right motherboard. The prices for these are very similar. If you want significantly better single-threaded performance you can go for an i5-8600k of which 88% clock to 5GHz on all cores (according to https://siliconlottery.com/col...). Let's say you even buy it from siliconlottery.com for that $280 instead of the $260 on newegg.com, in that case you get ~16% higher clocks on the already de- and relidded i5-8600k compared to the R5 2600X for a 21.7% higher price, if we use $230 for the R5 on a site like newegg.com. The boxed cooler for the R7 2700X might be very nice, but that of the R5 2600X does not really add a lot of value to it. At least not if you intend to run it at 4.3GHz.
So yeah, quit being a zealot. Choose the right tool for the job at hand.
Of course the most jobs where you need high single threaded performance is PC gaming and that also only applies to certain games. Games where the workloads are highly dynamic due to players being able to create their own assets without significant limitations. That is usually simulation games that let you build stuff - generating a huge amount of polygons - think of city builder games that allow you to have huge cities. Or (simulation) games that allow a high number of player to interact with each other - not your Counter Strike GO or Overwatch - think of ArmA 3, Elite: Dangerous, or even Grand Theft Auto V.
In these games you may need the high single threaded performance of one of those Intels to simply get playble frame rates above 30 FPS. Security checks also mean squat to users like that, because they usually do not run applications where security is that crucial.
Of course when you look at the player numbers of those games and compare it to other games that are either better optimized or simply far less hungry for resources, these demanding games are clearly a niche even within the PC gaming field. So how important can that be in the whole market? Will that be enough to carry Intel's products?
You are just playing top trumps, selecting one specific metric that "proves" your choice of CPU is better.
AMD give you more cores for the money. You get advanced features like encrypted RAM. More PCIe lanes. ECC memory support even on the base models.
Unless single core performance being 10% better is all that matters, you don't care at all about any other features or cost or lifespan of the mobo, then Intel is better. Otherwise Ryzen/Threadripper wins.
Quit being a zealot. Use the right tool for the job at hand.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC