Live data from Hacker News

Intel is dying and we can’t save it

sithsiri.medium.com

41–50 of 268 posts

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#41
post #9

Feels like Microsoft during the Balmer years. Instead of Linux and Mac ascendant, you have AMD and ARM... it doesn’t seem impossible to think a Satya Nadella could turn things around.

Realistically, Intel only have to get one process node right to either be right back in the game or buy themselves years more time to play with. They are currently somewhere between 3-5 times behind TSMC lithographically, but nowhere near that far behind in raw performance, which suggests that they could at very least knock AMD off their perch in single-threaded work. Obviously process nodes are much harder than pret…

> They are currently somewhere between 3-5 times behind TSMC lithographically

No they aren't. The nanometer names are only kinda comparable within a single company, but they are not comparable beyond that.

It's like saying that Chrome is 6x further ahead than Safari because Chrome is on 87 and Safari is only on 14. Same thing with fabs here, it's just a version number that counts down and has been for a long while.

In this case specifically, Intel's 10nm is more or less the same density as TSMC's 7nm. TSMC's 5nm is then a significant 1.8x the density of their 7nm process, so right now Intel's fabs are ~identical to what AMD is using (7nm), but Apple's use of TSMC's 5nm then puts them a generation ahead. TSMC is leading, but by a single generation not by 3-5x or whatever. Or to put it in year terms TSMC is about 2 years ahead of Intel right now, Intel just now getting "volume" 10nm up & running while TSMC was at a comparable node in volume 2 years ago.

As far as "performance" goes, though, so far TSMC, even their 5nm process, cannot quite match Intel. Remember that as far as the fab goes, performance is just what clock speeds can be hit, and Intel's clocks are the highest - they have the fastest transistors. 14nm+++++ is a meme/joke, but the actual transistor speed of it is still downright impressive. How fast a CPU actually runs depends on the architecture, though, which is influenced by density but in terms of pure single-core performance that's really almost entirely just architecture.

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#42
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realistically, Intel only have to get one process node right to either be right back in the game or buy themselves years more time to play with. They are currently somewhere between 3-5 times behind TSMC lithographically, but nowhere near that far behind in raw performance, which suggests that they could at very least knock AMD off their perch in single-threaded work. Obviously process nodes are much harder than pret…

> They are currently somewhere between 3-5 times behind TSMC lithographically No they aren't. The nanometer names are only kinda comparable within a single company, but they are not comparable beyond that. It's like saying that Chrome is 6x further ahead than Safari because Chrome is on 87 and Safari is only on 14. Same thing with fabs here, it's just a version number that counts down and has been for a long while. I…

Intel still can't make 10nm in any decent volume.

TSMC are shipping chips at something like 170MTr/mm^2, the bulk of Intel's production (even their new chips) are still closer to 40-50MTr/mm^2

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On par with it as client fab

They are the leading edge currently with no competitors that don't come with their own performance compromises.

Samsung has 8nm, but Nvidia has had a bit of a rocky ride on it as it was not tuned for large die area chips, but rather small Exynos SoCs.

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#44
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 3-5 times behind TSMC lithographically, I'm not entirely sure that is true. TSMC plays fast and loose with their definition of node. Any fab folks want to speak up? What I mean by that: https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/tsmc-7nm-5nm-and-3nm-are-just-n... "And also goes some way to explaining why, despite TSMC offering a nominally 7nm process, the general consensus has been that Intel’s 10nm design is pretty much analogo…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count#MOSFET_nodes Look it up yourself. Intel being on 14nm vs (say) 5nm is actually quite flattering to Intel.

Intel 14nm is 42/70/52 (fin/cgp/mmp) with a 7.5 track height. HD stamBitcell is 0.05um2 Very restrictive design rules

Tsmc 5nm is 27/54/36 with a 6T and 7.T option. More open design rules. HD SRAM cell is about 0.025um2.

This is almost exactly what you expect for 1 node of litho scaling.

The more difficult part is that the designs and related process optimizations for intel are different.

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#47
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Taiwan ends up getting trampled by China, we'd effectively only have Samsung for cutting edge lithography.

IMO, China will be careful to crush Taiwan economically first so that no one cares when they roll tanks in. Well, no one other than Taiwan I guess.

Given how dependent high end computing is on TSMC (Amd, Apple, Nvidea, + more) it's quite unlikely to be a viable strategy.

But given how messed up & fragmented the EU military is if the US stops military support for Taiwan china will likely directly declare War and Attack. (To be precise there is no EU military, just that of all members which makes it fragmented and in many cases is their military isn't in the best condition. Also China wouldn't declare War as it doesn't recognizance Taiwan, i.e. they would instead "use military force to attack rebels and terrorists" or something like that).

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#48
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That only lists the number, not what the # actually means in terms of actual lithography or more importantly, transitor performance. It used to be minimum feature size, or just L of the gate, but with finfet it can be an overloaded term. Scaling in x of .75 and y of .7 lead to 10% performance improvement per node at Intel. TSMC hasn't been that clear. And that doesn't even account for increase in metal layers, pitch…

And what information is there that isn't under NDA?

Everything in M1 and everything on Intel 14nm. Go read wikichip. It is there. IEDM just happened, tons of detail there.

3nm, sure, good luck.

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#49
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are the leading edge currently with no competitors that don't come with their own performance compromises.

Samsung has 8nm, but Nvidia has had a bit of a rocky ride on it as it was not tuned for large die area chips, but rather small Exynos SoCs.

Sure, but that's only a cute hack due to Apple bidding to eat up literally all of the TSMC 5nm capacity. I'm sure Nvidia would prefer TSMC 5nm to Samsung 8nm if they could put their hands on it.

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#50
post #10
post #3

And that's okay.

If Taiwan ends up getting trampled by China, we'd effectively only have Samsung for cutting edge lithography.

We should just bomb Taiwan's chip plants in case the Chinese take over. We can do that from pretty far away so not too much danger.
Post reply on HN