Hacker News Reader

Comment by zenovision | Hacker News Reader

Intel is too bureaucratic, slow and margin-oriented for the modern world (just like IBM). They tried to produce 10nm processors using an outdated technology and they struggle even now to make it work. Competitors, on the other side, using the newer and more expensive EUV technology, because they don't need super-huge margins. TSMC is already working on 5nm technology, while Intel is trying to fix their 10nm...

View on HN

10nm isn’t the same across the industry. There are no standards to defining a process node. Please watch Mark Bohr’s presentation on YouTube. The way you make your claims is kind of off-putting because of sheer confidence in your statements without properly understanding the fundamentals.

I think you've missed the point. Strip out the product names (which is all those node numbers are, as you say) and understand that the comment is still entirely correct - they are struggling with their outdated manufacturing method and now losing ground.

Intel is struggling with their manufacturing method, but they aren't wed to it. Everyone is struggling with EUV.

ASML - the guys who make the stuff that all the fab houses use, said that they only shipped 10 EUV machines in 2017. Intel's public statements on EUV is that they will use it when its ready.

TSMC and GF both manufacture their newest large scale production nodes using the same basic technique as Intel (hilarious amounts of exposures and layers at 193nm).

Everyone except Intel has said that they only plan to start rolling out EUV built chips in the later half of this year into next year.

No manufacturer has gained ground with EUV in their products yet.

Which sounds like 'everyone except Intel' has gained ground. You don't plan to go into production with something next year if you have not made it work.

I mean, you can announce your plans all you want. Intel did this with their 10nm stuff and now has significant egg on their face for their inability to deliver. Maybe Intel is just playing a tighter PR game given their recent mess up.

But really, EUV is a whole new ball game and its entirely possible for Intel to lose whatever is left of their traditional advantages in the transition.

I just don't think its wise reading too too much into everyone's PR and marketing at this time.

Semiconductor fab timelines are notoriously overoptimistic. It is undeniable that Intel's fab has been struggling for a few years, but you can't take a Fab at it's word on when it will begin production. More critical is when it reaches high volume maturity at a given node.

Deployment of EUV technology was initially expected in 2007. They had probably at least some valid reasons to stay with known technology. This is probably a mistake, but every company do mistakes.

Surely the managers of Intel have read about margins and mini-mills?

Fabs are all about margins, Intel has probably invested more in EUV than any other company at this point. Intel practically saved EUV at ASML by investing in ASML.

Where's competing processors?

I think the comment was about competing foundries, which are mostly using their leading-edge processes to manufacture chips that aren't going head to head with Intel's desktop and server CPUs. Instead, they're making smartphone SoCs and GPUs.

Intel produces 10nm mobile CPUs which corresponds to 7nm process of other manufacturers. And their 14nm desktop or server CPUs are still the best ones (in terms of pure performance). I'm sure that they are working on next generation CPUs. I don't see them being behind.

> Intel produces 10nm mobile CPUs

Those aren't mobile CPUs in the sense of being anywhere close to something that could power a smartphone or even a tablet. They're barely-functional desktop chips with large portions of the chip turned off and the rest down-clocked to small laptop power levels. And it's only one SKU so far, with extremely limited availability; mass production is currently scheduled for next year.

Intel's actual low-power microarchitecture is still on 14nm and can barely get its foot in the door for the tablet market. Meanwhile, two generations of smartphones have shipped using TSMC and Samsung 10nm SoCs, and TSMC's 7nm has started volume production.

And an N/A price on ARK. It's a disaster for only a 70mm^2 sized die. The no iGPU for a laptop CPU is almost a meme, and 2.2GHz (with only 3.1 turbo) dual-core at 15W just makes it even worse.

>"Intel produces 10nm mobile CPUs which corresponds to 7nm process of other manufacturers."

Can you say what's the reason for this differential?

From reading these threads previously, the answer is generally 'marketing'.

The node sizes listed aren't consistent. There's no standard, so 10nm for Intel isn't 10nm for TSMC. It doesn't mean that the transistors are 10nm,just the smallest feature. Since everyone measures this differently, it's effectively just a marketing number.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com