Intel's 10nm 'Cannonlake' delayed, replaced by 14nm 'Kaby Lake'

http://www.techspot.com/news/61103-intel-10nm-cannonlake-delayed-replaced-14nm-kaby-lake.html

by Moshe_Silnorin • 11 years ago

64 42 11 years ago

asanagi• 11 years ago

I think we'll enter a paradigm where R+D costs will drive the price of successive generations of CPUs back up to the level of the early '90s or even before. We're near the end of the road scaling down the same designs with improved photolithography techniques. Eventually, we'll find a new dimension to optimize on, and then rapidly progress in that direction, which will lower prices again.

Retric2• 11 years ago

A significant fraction this slowdown relates to Intel’s integrating graphics with their CPU's which not only costs silicon, but also adds heat. Intel has then traded most of their process gains into improving the terrible graphics performance to a near acceptable level at the cost of minimal CPU gains.

Sadly without real ed: competition Intel quickly stagnates. And AMD is still far behind the curve.

CapitalistCartr• 11 years ago

Did you mean competition in that penultimate sentence?

Retric2• 11 years ago

Yes, fixed thanks.

batou• 11 years ago

I'm using a 5 year old laptop with intel graphics. It's fine for everything other than CAD and gaming. The former I don't do and the latter I have an XBox.

Perhaps the market isn't there so this is no biggy?

solomatov6• 11 years ago

If you use the latest OSX, slowdown is very noticeable because of animations and other effects.

deelowe• 11 years ago

The threat isn't graphics: http://www.nvidia.com/object/tesla-supercomputing-solutions....

Intel is worried about HPC solutions eating away at it's processor chip dominance.

freehunter• 11 years ago

The PC gaming market certainly is there, and Intel graphics are very good these days. There are few games that cannot be played on Intel graphics now, compared to back in the GMA 900 days when almost nothing at all would run on an integrated chip.

bryanlarsen3• 11 years ago

That may explain why Broadwell isn't significantly faster than Sandy Bridge, but I don't understand how it has anything to do with this announcement. How does 10nm being delayed 1 year have anything to do with integrating graphics?

agumonkey2• 11 years ago

The GPU takes resources and put pressure on the design, at the expense of CPU logic. I think what he meant to say is that an intel CPU-only could devote more transistor to logic without having to deal with so much heat which might still be a problem at 10nm.

PaulHoule• 11 years ago

Intel does see competition, but not on the high end. They are afraid of ARM creeping up on them on the low end.

Intel has smartphone envy, and both Intel and Microsoft bet big that PCs were going to go to tablet form factors. Maybe they will (USB C will be a factor, but they really need to take the trackpads out of convertables. When people look at a tablet they say "I need a keyboard and I need a mouse", they don't say "I need a trackpad". They see a convertable and say "The trackpad sux" and the response is to make the trackpad bigger.)

Clayton Christiansen's gospel has been thoroughly internalized by tech giants that don't want to be the next Kodak, but today it means companies like Intel are happy to stiff their current customers to get customers they don't have yet.

kabdib• 11 years ago

Aren't ARM memory systems terrible at the moment? And when you want to get off-die, well . . .

solomatov6• 11 years ago

It seems that we almost reached the limit of Moore's law. 5nm seems to be a physical limit at least for sustainable changes of current technologies.

bryanlarsen3• 11 years ago

Reference "The Boy who cried Wolf". That pronouncement has been made and proven wrong way too many times for anybody to take it seriously. Eventually the wolf will come and the limit will be reached, but until it happens nobody will believe it.

solomatov6• 11 years ago

But how is this is possible? Diameter of silicon atom is 0.2nm and we need at least several atoms to create a transistor. I am sure Intel will be able to fulfill its roadmap to 4nm, maybe 2nm, but at this size quantum effects are so large, that everything should be changed.

jezfromfuture• 11 years ago

This was like news 3 weeks ago , now its just known facts..

eloff• 11 years ago

The article is saying 10nm is delayed indefinitely. The supporting evidence is not there. Intel is not commenting, and kaby lake likely just means that 10nm will take more time. After 14nm broadwell was delayed a year, this is not a big surprise to anyone.

The day will come when feature shrinkage will end for silicon based chips, but it is not this day. I hope!

jolan• 11 years ago

Just seems like they're backing off from publicly committing to a timeline (and probably giving themselves more time to get 10nm right). Which makes a lot of sense given how 14nm went and how long it took to get yields up to acceptable levels.

http://forwardthinking.pcmag.com/none/329835-intel-sees-path...

Krzanich said the company thinks it signaled too much of its intentions to the industry about its 14nm plans, so "we'll be a bit more prudent in releasing information" about new manufacturing nodes. He wouldn't commit to the company's familiar Tick/Tock cadence of releasing a new process node one year and a new architecture the following year, though Smith said the company expects to be on a "fairly normal cadence" and "will talk about 10 nm in the next 12 or 18 months when appropriate."

They've stated in the past and recently reiterated that they have a clear path to 10nm.

astrodust3• 11 years ago

Intel was charting out to 6nm, which seems totally insane, and I'm not sure they can push must past that wall.

This article from 2011 seems highly relevant: http://www.extremetech.com/computing/97469-is-14nm-the-end-o...

MikeNomad2• 11 years ago

I would think the Cannonlake delay is more about HVAC / Clean Room environmental controls for particles at 10nm than the actual chip fab.

pjc50• 11 years ago

Why do you think that?

astrodust3• 11 years ago

That only affects yield, and the lithography process is largely the same, so nope.

MikeNomad2• 11 years ago

Yeah, the litho process is largely the same. Thanks for furthing the idea I was trying to get across: The hang up is not in the production process, it's in the environmental controls.

To put it another way, if I manufacture on a smaller die size, I have to control for smaller pieces of junk in the air. If I don't, I will get poor (read, not cost effective) yields, making production in that environment a bad business decision.

Intel's 10nm 'Cannonlake' delayed, replaced by 14nm 'Kaby Lake'

Related Stories