Slashdot Mirror
Intel Optimistic About Its Next-Gen 7nm Process Technology (anandtech.com)
From a report: Originally planned to enter mass production in the second half of 2016, Intel's 10 nm process technology is still barely used by the company today. Currently the process is used to produce just a handful of CPUs, ahead of an expected ramp to high-volume manufacturing (HVM) only later in 2019. Without a doubt, Intel suffered delays on its 10 nm process by several years, significantly impacting the company's product lineup and its business. Now, as it turns out, Intel's 10 nm may be a short-living node as the company's 7 nm tech is on-track for introduction in accordance with its original schedule.
For a number of times Intel said that it set too aggressive scaling/transistor density targets for its 10 nm fabrication process, which is why its development ran into problems. Intel's 10 nm manufacturing tech relies exclusively on deep ultraviolet lithography (DUVL) with lasers operating on a 193 nm wavelength. To enable the fine feature sizes that Intel set out to achieve on 10 nm, the process had to make heavy usage of mutli-patterning. According to Intel, a problem of the process was precisely its heavy usage of multipatterning (quad-patterning to be more exact).
For a number of times Intel said that it set too aggressive scaling/transistor density targets for its 10 nm fabrication process, which is why its development ran into problems. Intel's 10 nm manufacturing tech relies exclusively on deep ultraviolet lithography (DUVL) with lasers operating on a 193 nm wavelength. To enable the fine feature sizes that Intel set out to achieve on 10 nm, the process had to make heavy usage of mutli-patterning. According to Intel, a problem of the process was precisely its heavy usage of multipatterning (quad-patterning to be more exact).
Intel will now re-label their 10nm as 7nm.
And before you go there, Intel was the first company to lie about node size.
"His name was James Damore."
They've had the tech for several years, but now, finally, they've managed to include the desired spy-tech and are finally able to comply with the nsa standards on data decryption.
So huray for finally getting commercial approval!
Huray !
PS. don't tell bloomberg, they might think it's a story.
captcha = worthy
With chip makers struggling to make faster chips, this is a good time to make a stand to stop companies from making comparable hardware obsolete--just because they want to sell chips. If they can make faster chips then buy them, but please do not buy side-graded hardware, that's no better than what you have--because it fills up the landfills. My 7-year-old intel 2600k is only 30% slower than current quad-core offerings. I need more cores, but I am not throwing this motherboard, chip, and memory out, any time soon.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
The 10nm delays were hailed as "the end of intel!" and "AMD will destroy them" and other kinds of ridiculous things, over a year ago.
A year later and I'll say, these delays are very significant now, it's very likely that AMD will genuinely have a processor out that has superior process technology in it. May not be faster due to design but the gap closing faster.
Also, Intel 7nm chips will be superior to other "7nm" chips out there, since companies kind of just make up the numbers now. Intel 10nm = TMSC 7nm basically. Quite frustrating.
Regardless Intel needs this, 14nm is seriously long in the tooth for Intel and there are very obvious limitations to what can be done for efficiency, performance, they're very much running out improvements.
Given that the diameter of a silicon atom is around 0.2nm, that means they are now building transistors out of something like 30-35 atoms across. How far down can this go before it all disappears in some kind of quantum uncertainty blob?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
AMD already has a *much* better processor out there. Because businesses calculate in dollars per performance. They like as many cores as possible with the fastest interconnects.
In all of those aspects, Intel currently is a joke, compared to AMD.
Which is exactly, why Epyc processors are currently making big cuts into Intel's Xeon revenues.
Intel is currently in panic mode.
It's really pathetic, how Intel fanboys always cling to the one thing they have left: Meltdown-included single core performance.
By acting as if that's equal to "speed". Because current generation games are still programmed for consoles with very few threads. And a few algorithms can't be parallelized.
Which will be meaningless, as soon as the next consoles come out, and because nobody in the real world runs just one algorithm at the same time on his system.
And no, Intel's "7nm" will not be superior to other "7nm" chips, because it WILL be Intel's 10nm process! ^^
(Intel came up with it, btw, according to the current top comment.)
Grow up. You are not Intel. You don't have to project your self-worth onto something else, just because you subconsciously think your own life sucks so much. Your life could be much greater, if you'd actually deal with it, instead of running away.
if only they would stop their "shady" tactics to destroy the competition. I mean I know Intel generally speaking is better than AMD but Jesus, just be transparent about it. We live in an age where details are so important and contrary to times target audience or any other. Well when people want to know about intel vs amd benchmark, they know what they're looking at. Don't try to dupe them.
Especially for King Baby, fending off literally dozens to hundreds of charges of fraud, conspiracy, obstruction, emoluments, conflicts, tax frauds, etc. Then comes PRISON FOR LIFE, which will REALLLLLLY crawl by.
Bring lube, traitor Drumptards. You're seriously going to get hurt without it. Those "bad dudes" are ready to take your GOP fact-hole virginity, BIGLY. Traitors like you are about to GET FUCKED TO PIECES
They were stoked for years over their 10nm process, we all know how that ended up. I'll believe this "7nm" process is worth something when I see any results from it.
OP here again. I need to correct myself. It's apparently EUV now, and not quad patterning anymore. So Intel's 7nm will probably be pretty neat. I would have to check where others (like TSMC) are, when Intel is finally there, before I'd judge which one is superior though.
Also, I want to add, that I'm criticizing fanboyism in general, and not only Intel fanboys. Had you been an AMD fanboy, I'd not have much good to tell you either.
TSMC are putt out 7 nm chips in the tens of millions, and suddenly your 7 nm is on track when you can't even make 10 nm work? Right.
This is Intel falling behind and panicking. It's about as honest as them gouging customers for years and years with hugely inflated prices because AMD had nothing to compete with in the very top segment. Remember that honesty when you go to buy their new "7 nm" processors in 2019.
You can tell when the other side has nothing of import to add.. They start cussing and head for the gutter.
I suggest you come to terms with who's sits in the oval office, somehow, or it's going to be a really long and unhappy 6 more years for you in your mother's basement.
Get help and take the medication they give you.
Get your sh*t together. We need competition in the CPU business and can't stand for you to faceplant much longer.
Who is CEO of Intel these days? Ballmer?
It seems that they are really dropping the ball!!
Intel behind on their chip fabs?
Major security flaws in their chips?
Is this even possible for the once dominating chip company?
ps. I thought Ballmer was at Apple these days.. but it seems he's CEO of both spending more time at Intel?
The leaked AMD Ryzen specs spooked them, simple as that.
I had doubts that EUV would actually be used in a real fab, but near the end of Moore's Law, it might finally come to fruition.
Consoles have been multi-core for a long time
13 years ago, XBox 360: 3 core IBM CPU
12 years ago, PS3: 8 core IBM CPU, 6 used for running the game.
6 years ago, Wii U, 3 core IBM CPU
5 years ago, PS4: "8" core AMD CPU
5 years ago, XBox One: "8" core AMD CPU
As someone who works on EUV at ASML, I'm getting a kick...
This is sort of like Bhutan Airways claiming that they set the world record for the longest flight, when it's the airplane that was made by Boeing...
No one will have true 7nm "node" without EUV, and no one has machines that do EUV lithography besides ASML. Intel knows this or they wouldn't have given ASML a ton of money.
End user desktop benchmarks, do not correlate, in any way, with your post for average use case. Single core is still king in a plethora of tasks, and likely will be for a long time.
Server performance, on seriously threaded applications, per $ per core, $ per watt, etc, AMD is doing amazing, I'm very happy for them and it's awesome.
This changes nothing for home users. Intel still hammers it home at single core, not just games. They have better IPC and more frequency.
I am not intel, I do not own intel shares, I do want competition and I'd like AMD to compete, to imply otherwise is in fact probably more indicative that you either can't read reviews very well, or you own AMD stock.
Oh and this specific comment of yours, is wildly incorrect
">And no, Intel's "7nm" will not be superior to other "7nm" chips, because it WILL be Intel's 10nm process! ^^
(Intel came up with it, btw, according to the current top comment.)"
Intels 10nm = similar to TMSC's 7
This article is specifically about INTEL doing their own refresh to 7nm as in "intel 7nm" not "generic 7nm" - this will likely be similar to what TMSC claim to be 5nm.
If you have any understanding of how this stuff works or follow tech news, I'd expect you to be able to discern that.
Read this stuff regularly, open your mouth only when you know what you're talking about.
Embarassing.
This article is specifically about INTEL doing their own refresh to 7nm as in "intel 7nm" not "generic 7nm" - this will likely be similar to what TMSC claim to be 5nm.
I actually doubt that. I think it will be Intel just renaming their 10nm as 7nm and adding some EUV mask steps to justify it. So the days of endlessly re-explaining that "Intel 10nm is similar to TSMC 7nm" will be over, and that's all that will change. Intel is not going to magically leapfrog TSMC and retake the process lead.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
They have been working on 7nm in parallel though, so it's not out of the question they could pull something out of the bag. If 7nm is instead an iterative improvement on 10nm process, then you're probably right
They have been working on 7nm in parallel though, so it's not out of the question they could pull something out of the bag.
Yes it is. Intel is using exactly the same ASML equipment as TSMC and Samsung. It is a very safe bet that they are using it at exactly the same resolution.
BTW, as of today, EUV is not anywhere close to ready for high volume production, only samples. One huge issue is pellicles, those things that cover masks to keep them clean. The problem is, all matter is opaque to EUV so the pellicle needs to be made ridiculously thin to pass enough light, and has to not burn up given the megawatt or so they pump into the optics to get enough light through the huge chain of mirrors.
There is just no way on God's green earth that Intel will set up a pure EUV fab line for its first attempt at EUV volume production. They will mix a few EUV steps into their deep EUV node, like everybody else.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
"It is a very safe bet that they are using it at exactly the same resolution."
Even if the EUV tool has the same resolution (theoretical upper limit is 41 nm pitch for parallel lines for EUV exposure at NA 0.33 and 13.5 nm wavelength; 71 nm pitch or so for 193 nm at NA 1.35), the resulting feature size in the chip is hugely dependent on the (etching and deposition) process that follows. Intel/TSMC/Samsung have specialized in very different processes. It's amazing how process techniques can result in features much smaller than the exposure pattern you started with.
"given the megawatt or so they pump into the optics"
According to ASML's reports last summer, the EUV source outputs 250 W. Are you talking about electrical power?
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
"theoretical upper limit is *21* nm pitch for parallel lines for EUV exposure at NA 0.33 and 13.5 nm wavelength; "
Sorry, forgot a factor 2. There, FTFM.
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
According to ASML's reports last summer, the EUV source outputs 250 W. Are you talking about electrical power?
Right. I confess to a bit of conflation there, to bring home the full scary picture of an EUV stepper. Hardly your granddaddy's gestetner. Semiwiki says 300 watts of EUV is desirable for high volume. According to Wikipedia the input power rounds up to a megawatt.That doesn't directly heat the pellicle of course, but it does require a small creek's worth of cooling. The pellicle is relatively late in the optical path so only a fraction of the 300 watts goes through it (twice) but it's still a huge problem for a membrane just tens of nm thick.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Wikipedia says ASML's current offering, the NXE:3400B, has 13nm resolution. My (shaky) understanding is, that means barely capable of single patterning at 7 nm. It looks to me like EUV double patterning will be a thing already at 7nm, and certainly at 5nm. But at least it's better than quad patterning that reportedly defeated Intel.
I think everybody's in the same boat, basically, and nobody has a magic bullet. Intel thought they were smart enough to make quad patterning work where others respectfully shied away from it and they were wrong. That should teach them not to make their engineering decisions based on most colorful powerpoint slide. To succeed at EUV, Intel is going to need to learn to pool their tech and play well with others.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Israel manufactures on land designated, by the UN, for Palestine: http://worldobserveronline.com... Don't support companies that make it a point to manufacture on occupied land. They have the rest of the planet to build factories on, but ensure that chips are built specifically on occupied land to perpetuate injustice.
The PS3 did NOT have 8 cores! It had 8 units similar to those in GPUs today! It only had one actual full processor core!
Those units had a way too long pipeline, and were limited in what they could do.
Generally, 3 cores or "8" cores are NOT actual 8 cores or more, like the high-end Ryzen CPUS, as was exactly the point of my argument, that you deliberately twisted.
I suppose that's why AMD is beating Intel in the DC.... Oh wait.
No dollar/performance is not king. It's important, but not king. Work done per time is far more important when the output is worth more than the hardware.
Intel really know their customers. AMD has no answer for optane for instance, their response to ryzenfall, etc was pathetic, some still have no time frame for a fix. Their customers note this and see AMD's solution as immature. Worth a go for the low end where dollar/performance is valuable, but not for the high end or mission critical.
And no Intel's 7nm is not their 10nm renamed. It's competing with what others are calling 5nm. Intel will proceed with a slightly relaxed 10nm, because the have sunk r&d and even if they don't use it for many cpus, they have plenty of other designs where it will be useful. Eg chipsets, asic and other dc products. AMD had a chance, again, but couldn't build momentum, again, despite having a nearly ideal market opportunity. I doubt they'll get another chance.