intel might have further delayed 10nm (refuted by intel)

[spartaman64]

Quote

It looks like Intel is not just delaying a single server project, their entire roadmap has just slid significantly. SemiAccurate is now worried about what we are hearing from the company, things do not appear to be getting better.

We told you about the latest near-term delay to an Intel server CPU yesterday, the word games about it’s predecessor, the previous delay to the platform first mentioned earlier, and many more. Some of these delays are pretty small and won’t have a big effect on customers, other are just the opposite.

Quote

Upping the TDP of Whitley last June is nothing short of catastrophic for customers, the change means you can’t reasonably cool the CPU with air. Water cooling isn’t the end of the world but it does entail platform changes, has strong resistance from some customers, and requires a new set of skills from those deploying it, all manageable things. Unfortunately Intel sprung this on customers 2Q before the (then) release date. That isn’t enough time for most to validate the platform much less design new chassis and cooling parts to support the higher TDP.

Why did Intel do this? AMD has 64 cores on their Rome CPUs, Intel was on track for ‘only’ 40-48 so TDP went up. This is the same thinking that resurrected Cascade Lake-AP to no positive acclaim. The only thing these dual-die parts are good for is grabbing headlines and lessening benchmark losses among potential customers that don’t read the basics of the specs. A 400W part with crippling restrictions, no 3rd party systems, and a price that Intel refuses to disclose is not a recipe for a sales winner. Raising Cooper Lake to 300W does the same thing to the mass market line.

Quote

It would be one thing if that bump pushed Cooper over the top and had it win some benchmarks but, well, it doesn’t. The 64-core AMD Rome based Epyc 7xx2 CPUs win almost everything handily even against the mythical dual die Cascade-AP line, if you take TDP into account things just get far worse. And as AMD has shown with the 32-core Threadripper 3, and the Epyc 7H12, AMD can up the TDP to 400W+ with ease and crush anything Intel can offer by an even wider margin. The fact that AMD has not responded to the TDP wars should tell you everything you need to know about the TAM of this space and market acceptance of the dual-die line.

Quote

That brings us back to today’s story, the changes to Intel’s roadmap other than the bits we told you about yesterday. Intel put some statements into the customer letter that were intended to sound soothing but as long as you don’t move your lips much when you read, were pretty transparent. The net effect was they horrified customers and OEMs which caused SemiAccurate to dig in to why those statements were made. The customers were right to be horrified, the dire picture we painted a year ago now looks rosy in comparison.

 

Quote

A report from SemiAccurate today claimed that Intel has significantly delayed its "entire server roadmap," and a follow-on report from Wells Fargo analyst Aaron Rakers, which cites the SemiAccurate report and "industry checks," seemingly reaffirms that Intel has hit yet another roadblock on its path to recovering from its incessant 10nm delays, thus impacting delivery of the Ice Lake processors for the data center. 

However, in a statement sent to Tom's Hardware, Intel maintains that its data center roadmap remains intact and on-schedule:

"Intel remains on track for delivery of the Whitley platform starting with production of Cooper Lake in H1 2020 followed by Ice Lake production in H2 2020. We are also on track to follow Whitley with the delivery of Sapphire Rapids in 2021," an Intel spokesperson said. 

Quote

These remarks echo the company's reassurances this week to its investors at the UBS Global TMT Conference. In response to a question about Intel's ability to compete given that AMD now has the process lead, Dr. Murty Renduchintala, Intel’s group president of the Technology, Systems Architecture & Client Group and chief engineering officer, responded:

 "[...]And of course by the end of 2020, we'll come out with Ice Lake, our first 10nm server solution that brings important performance-per-core benefits to the surface. So all in all, I think we have an aggressive roadmap that we feel pretty good about to deal with the competitive landscape."

When asked if he was "just reconfirming that Ice Lake will be out in the second half of 2020," Murty replied saying "yes." 

Quote

Intel's repeated delays have left many to question the company's ability to execute on the troubled 10nm process. But according to Intel's repeated statements, the Whitley platform, which will support both 14nm Cooper Lake and 10nm Ice Lake processors, is on track.

Intel CEO Bob Swan also remarked on the roadmap in the company's third-quarter earnings call in October:

"And in terms of competitive dynamics, I would just say that, we've got a great lineup of products. We got Skylake to Cascade Lake first half of next year we're looking at Cooper Lake. As we talked before, we're really excited about Ice Lake server coming out in the second half of next year[...]," he said, as per a transcription via Seeking Alpha.

Quote

Intel's last two roadmaps, Murty's comments last week, Swan's comments in October and Intel's statement today all point to Cooper Lake, Ice Lake, and Sapphire Rapids adhering to that schedule.

But the proof is in the pudding. Both SemiAccurate and Wells Fargo's Rakers claimed that Intel's roadmap has slipped further. Although Intel refuted those claims directly today, its incessant delays on 10nm products mean we won't know the absolute truth until the company begins shipping the silicon. Given the error of margin with Intel's roadmap projections, it's possible we won’t know if Ice Lake is actually on track until December 31, 2020.

sources: https://www.semiaccurate.com/2019/12/12/intel-significantly-delays-its-entire-server-roadmap/

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-refutes-reports-of-further-roadmap-delays

 

I'm not sure who to believe on whether or not intel 10nm is delayed but if intel lied about being on track that would destroy investor confidence in them so I'm leaning towards them just because of that.

edit: nvm read it wrong it was the cascade lake ap parts that were 400w tdp which made intel's benchmark showing it beating epyc just ridiculous but still 300W is no joke either 

[amdorintel]

i am not sure who to believe either, but either way the 10nm look promising

 

inb4!

[Billy Pilgrim]

I wouldn't be surprised if Intel just skips 10nm for 7nm.

[spartaman64]

1 hour ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

I wouldn't be surprised if Intel just skips 10nm for 7nm.

tbh they should probably do that rather than releasing 400w tdp cpus

edit: nvm read it wrong it was the cascade lake ap parts that were 400w tdp which made intel's benchmark showing it beating epyc just ridiculous but still 300W is no joke either 

[Founders]

Competition is a beautiful thing and it will be very interesting to see how Intel copes with it in the future. So far they've been scrambling like a gaggle of turkeys. Intel has huge capital to work with so the next 2-5 years should be very interesting. They also maintain a large portion of the market share and brand recognition among consumers. With Intel and AMD's current offerings in the server space wider adoption of EPYC is conceivable but it will be up to OEM's to push AMD to their customers.    

[Dabombinable]

Of course Intel is going to refute anything coming out about delays on their 10nm lineup. They don't want their stock to crash. That being said, it's entirely believable with their only released 10nm cpu being so bad.

[mr moose]

At this point I don't believe anyone, suffice to say Intel might have just beaten d-wave to producing the first truly quantum CPU,  It is both working on target and delayed with issues at the same time.

[WillyW]

The issue is not just that their process nodes are delayed its that their current 'core' micro-architecture is based on completely flawed insecure components. It takes datacenter engineers years to trust, buy into, and implement a new arch. As it stands now it doesn't really matter that AMD's stuff is faster and more efficient really, it's that the cost per machine equation is no longer in Intel's favour because of all these security vulnerabilities. The mitigations are causing the economics to fail hard. There are some engineers who have had to ditch their five to eight year plans because of them. Intel needs a new arch and Intel only figured out that they needed to start a new arch one to two years ago - which at that time was five years too late and now will cost them an extra five years to get back in with the customers they lost with the current issues.

 

On another side I honestly wonder about Apple's future with Macs. Their new $50k units are not worth it. Creatives have already gotten a taste of the other hardware, and Apple has been ready in software to deploy their ARM CPUs in Macs as the main processor, the only issue is that as good as it is, it's not ready. Apple has neglected their computer business for a long time, this can only further hurt their laptop and desktop business.

[WillyW]

Oh yeah and I forgot to mention ... the x86 patents including amd64 are expiring next year. Remember VIA? They're back. Intel's biggest threat may not be just process node:

 

https://semiaccurate.com/2019/11/18/centaurs-new-cpu-is-the-first-x86-with-an-ai-co-processor/

[JoshHendi]

Should be interesting to see what their (hopefully) last line 14nm chips can do

[niofalpha]

Of course when I'm looking to upgrade the next big performance jump keeps getting delayed.