Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
sticky

Intel's Future Chips: News, Rumours & Reviews - Page 2

Tags:
  • rumors
  • skylake
  • Intel
  • haswell
  • CPUs
  • broadwell
  • Systems
  • news
  • Processors
Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 19, 2013 1:11:40 AM

Well, at least we now know how it stacks up
January 19, 2013 11:11:41 AM

Thats one huge wafer
Glad to see it starting to happen
January 19, 2013 1:01:33 PM

Bigger wafers = more profit for Chip makers/designers.
I really doubt consumers will get cheaper products because of this reason.
January 19, 2013 1:02:55 PM


S|A has been saying that Apple is very capable of buying all chips production of TSMC, use whatever they can, and mete out the rest to whoever they want (QC, NV,AMD), at whatever the price.
Say one thing for Apple, say they are thorough.
January 19, 2013 1:33:37 PM

This also somewhat helps offset the higher costs of the newer smaller harder to do nodes
January 19, 2013 2:18:53 PM

But the move itself to 450mm has cost fukcing huge amounts, in direct investments, takeovers, and partnerships. What would the semiconductor industry do without Intel leading innovation and forcing others too ?

AFAIK, Intel will start producing 450mm this year, prolly in late Q3.So would those chips be production ready, or more of a "production test chips" ?
January 19, 2013 5:44:34 PM

This is a collaboration, with Intel spearheading it.
Each collaborator makes some off of this as well, including, especially, the tool makers.
Intel gets at least a full years lead here as well, maybe more
http://www.icknowledge.com/news/Forecasting%20the%20450...
Not sure how fast all fabs will ramp.
TSMC says 2018, which may include mature ramp dates, not sure.
January 20, 2013 3:38:52 AM

mayankleoboy1 said:
But the move itself to 450mm has cost fukcing huge amounts, in direct investments, takeovers, and partnerships. What would the semiconductor industry do without Intel leading innovation and forcing others too ?

AFAIK, Intel will start producing 450mm this year, prolly in late Q3.So would those chips be production ready, or more of a "production test chips" ?


Don't think the average punter will get their hands on a CPU made on a 450mm wafer till 2016, it will probably be on the 10nm process.


EDIT : Actually, thinking about this a bit more, Intel will probably do a run of 14nm 450mm wafers first, as by then, 14nm will be a known quantity and thus well suited to trying out on this new wafer size. It would also make for some very cheap and plentiful Atom SoC's to target various sectors of the Smartphone market. This might mean they would come out in 2015.
January 20, 2013 5:34:46 AM

Dunno why, but Wintel dont believe in "very cheap".

Edit : not to be sarcastic or anything, Intel already has plentiful SoC's. Its just that nobody wants to buy them....
a b à CPUs
January 20, 2013 1:41:43 PM

mayankleoboy1 said:
S|A has been saying that Apple is very capable of buying all chips production of TSMC, use whatever they can, and mete out the rest to whoever they want (QC, NV,AMD), at whatever the price.
Say one thing for Apple, say they are thorough.


Yep the Samsung/Apple battle is causing major collateral damage. That's why neither AMD/NV are talking about 20nm anything yet. Even for their 2014 parts its 28nm.

Meanwhile Intel will be at 14nm.
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2013 3:02:01 AM

Since this is a future chip thread, who thinks Intel is going to go BGA with Broadwell?
January 22, 2013 4:28:42 AM

Intel is going BGA with Broadwell for majority of the product lines.
Only 1 DT line will have an LGA package, prolly the high end 'K' parts. So technically, they "are committed to the LGA form factor".
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2013 7:50:08 PM

mayankleoboy1 said:
Bigger wafers = more profit for Chip makers/designers.
I really doubt consumers will get cheaper products because of this reason.


450mm is essential in order to move below 10nm. Without such reduction in fab equipment and per-die cost, it would be impossible to sustain a shrink every 2 years (and still make money). This is what Intel is banking on. The move to 450mm wafers is going to cost upwards of 6-10B (on top of the 11B/yr Intel spends on CapEX) over the next 5 years or so. Very few other foundries will be able to make this move. TSMC, Samsung, and probably IBM. We're going to see the number of leading node foundries drop off to maybe 3-4 (including Intel) after the 450mm shift.

Quote:
But the move itself to 450mm has cost fukcing huge amounts, in direct investments, takeovers, and partnerships. What would the semiconductor industry do without Intel leading innovation and forcing others too ?

AFAIK, Intel will start producing 450mm this year, prolly in late Q3.So would those chips be production ready, or more of a "production test chips" ?

..


Quote:

Don't think the average punter will get their hands on a CPU made on a 450mm wafer till 2016, it will probably be on the 10nm process.


EDIT : Actually, thinking about this a bit more, Intel will probably do a run of 14nm 450mm wafers first, as by then, 14nm will be a known quantity and thus well suited to trying out on this new wafer size. It would also make for some very cheap and plentiful Atom SoC's to target various sectors of the Smartphone market. This might mean they would come out in 2015.


We won't see 450mm on a high volume node until 2018.
January 22, 2013 9:29:21 PM

You might include GF here as well, especially if IBM goes as well, the monies there, but we will have to wait on the commitment
January 23, 2013 12:59:38 AM

Samsung is the other company which has the money to spend on 450mm wafers.
January 23, 2013 1:55:18 PM

Did they even have a market ?
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2013 2:17:55 PM

mayankleoboy1 said:
Did they even have a market ?


Apparently not a very good one.
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2013 2:40:51 PM

With the initial BGA only rumors people feared that Intel would take over the motherboard market and put the Asus/Gigabytes/etc out of business. That's clearly not the case.
January 23, 2013 3:15:56 PM

:lol:  yes i remember.
a b å Intel
a c 84 à CPUs
January 23, 2013 3:45:16 PM

intel mobos were focused on stability rather than performance or features. the ones i know of lasted pretty long too. problem is - the prices are too high and asus, gb, asrock all offer better.. of everything.
January 24, 2013 7:44:17 PM

getochkn said:
4 cores, new socket means new MB's, nothing new with Intel.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Intel-Haswell-Ivy-Brid...

So expect the most popular Haswell CPUs (i5-4670K and i5-4570) between April and June? I'm assuming 4670K ~= 3570K and 4670 ~= 3450?

Has there been any indication yet as to whether it will be early or late Q2, aside from the "Sources indicate that a number of Haswell CPU's should be released on the 2nd of June" bit?
January 25, 2013 1:06:53 AM

^ I wouldnt trust anyone who quotes Tomshardware News.
Seriously, they are pathetic.
a b å Intel
a c 84 à CPUs
January 25, 2013 12:34:07 PM

Invensas puts entire DIMM on a chip
CES 2013: DDR3, DDR4, GDDR5, it doesn't matter to Invensas
http://semiaccurate.com/2013/01/25/invensas-puts-entire...
sounds promising. ultrabook cpus as well as amd apus may benefit from tech like this.

Mobile Haswell Celerons coming in Q4 13
http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/30258-mobile-haswell-...
Intel’s top Ultrabook GPU is HD 5100
http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/30257-intel%E2%80%99s...
Haswell with GT3 graphics comes in Q3 13
http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/30242-haswell-with-gt...

lexington crapped out ahem.. i mean unleashed...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mobile/display/20130124235...
it has mcafee too :sweat:  :sol: 
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2013 2:30:50 PM

The "Yolo Smartphone"? My goodness marketing is getting desperate.
a c 105 à CPUs
January 26, 2013 12:46:13 PM

amdfangirl said:
It's like the ACP debate.


Eh, not really. The ACP debate was due Intel rating the Core-based Xeons' TDPs using "typical power" figures rather than using the previous definition of fairly close to maximum power as the Opterons and Netburst-based Xeons used. AMD had also significantly over-rated many of their Opterons' TDPs to make sure that there was plenty of cooling no matter what. Some sleazy vendors had skimped on cooling on some K7 chips and also didn't often implement catastrophic overheat protection, and AMD's chips had acquired a reputation of "burning up" as a result. AMD used ACP to try to make a more apples-to-apples comparison between the Third Generation Opterons and the Core- and Nehalem-based Xeons as Intel was pushing the TDP issue pretty hard. Currently you don't hear anything about ACP as AMD has Core Performance Boost on all Bulldozer-based parts and sets the power limit as equal to the TDP, so ACP can equal TDP if you really whack at the chip. So they dropped ACP.

The Intel "SDP" essentially is that the chip can thermally throttle itself down to an 8 watt power long-term power consumption if you grossly undercool it. The thermal *design* power of the chip is 17 watts or so since that's the amount of power it will draw if you expect it to run at full rated speed. AMD's chips can throttle too but as far as I can tell AMD simply releases grossly underclocked chips that have a design power of whatever watts instead of relying on throttling to keep temps in check in an undercooled system.

de5_Roy said:


i am all for gt3 on desktop :love:  . even if it drives up tdp from 84w. amd's top dt apus are 100w so that's not a factor. i was disappointed to see all dt cpus 'rumored' get puny gt2. may be intel got too lazy and decided not to include 40 shaders on the dt silicon.
shaderrage! :( 


Who knows, it probably has to deal with product line segmentation if history is any guide. You would expect desktop chips to be available with the larger IGP setup as desktops aren't as power- and cooling-constrained and tend to have larger displays. Businesses and HTPC users would do well with a stouter IGP rather than needing to buy a discrete GPU to get adequate desktop performance. I suppose only Intel really knows.

Chad Boga said:
Don't think the average punter will get their hands on a CPU made on a 450mm wafer till 2016, it will probably be on the 10nm process.


I would expect the punters to be the FIRST ones to get these chips. Intel's strategy is to introduce new processes on small, midrange and low-end chips. For example, the first chips on 32 nm were the dual-core Clarkdales and the first 22 nm chips were only quad-core at best. The really big chips like Xeon EXes and Itaniums are always the last ones to move to a new process. Shoot, 8-way Xeon EXes are still 32 nm Westmere based, not even Sandy Bridge let alone Ivy Brdge.
January 27, 2013 12:23:15 PM

MU_Engineer said:

I would expect the punters to be the FIRST ones to get these chips. Intel's strategy is to introduce new processes on small, midrange and low-end chips. For example, the first chips on 32 nm were the dual-core Clarkdales and the first 22 nm chips were only quad-core at best. The really big chips like Xeon EXes and Itaniums are always the last ones to move to a new process. Shoot, 8-way Xeon EXes are still 32 nm Westmere based, not even Sandy Bridge let alone Ivy Brdge.


The reason why I specified "average punters", was to distinguish between a commercial release and an engineering sample(that might end up with a non-average punter), I wasn't making an assessment on which segments of the market Intel would target first. :) 
January 28, 2013 7:59:27 PM

Look for Ivy-E's in the wild in about a month.
a c 105 à CPUs
January 28, 2013 9:04:51 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Look for Ivy-E's in the wild in about a month.


I think the most noteworthy of these is that Intel is actually going to release a Xeon MP (er, EX) when its architecture is still current! I don't believe Intel has ever released a Xeon MP with the same microarchitecture as the current desktop chips. The current EXes are four year old Westmeres for crying out loud. Intel does have the Sandy Bridge-EP E5-4xxx units that are sort of Xeon MPs because they are four-way capable but they aren't the giant die with extra cores/cache that are found with other Xeon MPs, such as the Westmere-EX.
a b à CPUs
January 28, 2013 11:10:32 PM

MU_Engineer said:
I think the most noteworthy of these is that Intel is actually going to release a Xeon MP (er, EX) when its architecture is still current! I don't believe Intel has ever released a Xeon MP with the same microarchitecture as the current desktop chips. The current EXes are four year old Westmeres for crying out loud. Intel does have the Sandy Bridge-EP E5-4xxx units that are sort of Xeon MPs because they are four-way capable but they aren't the giant die with extra cores/cache that are found with other Xeon MPs, such as the Westmere-EX.



The E5 Sandy Bridges go up to 8C/16T. Not quite the 10C core beasts of past but the architectural changes and the much higher turbo clocks make up for that.

For the E7s it looks like they're skipping to Ivy.

With Xeon Phi and GPGPU taking off the need for 8-way is on the decline.
a c 105 à CPUs
January 29, 2013 12:05:24 AM

Cazalan said:
The E5 Sandy Bridges go up to 8C/16T. Not quite the 10C core beasts of past but the architectural changes and the much higher turbo clocks make up for that.

For the E7s it looks like they're skipping to Ivy.

With Xeon Phi and GPGPU taking off the need for 8-way is on the decline.


I would more say that the increasingly multicore CPUs are killing off the 8+ socket machines, just like they have reduced overall socket count for everything else. Go ask anybody who's sold to the enterprise market for the last 20 years and ask them what the mix of 1P/2P/4P/8P+ was 8-10 years ago before multi-core CPUs came out, compared to what it is today. GPGPU has its niche but it is a niche. For example, they wouldn't do very well in serving VMs or databases.
a b à CPUs
January 30, 2013 2:41:22 AM

^^ The comparison bar graphs are cut off before 0. A bit misleading but they also posted the raw data too.
January 30, 2013 3:01:22 AM

Yea, the whole thing may be cropped.
Take with some salt, while I do think this is real, its not "ready" real
January 30, 2013 6:57:28 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:

Take with some salt, while I do think this is real, its not "ready" real

Or is it your hope that Haswell will (and should) be better than what these numbers show ? :p 
a b à CPUs
January 30, 2013 11:18:06 AM

How can the 1M run be interpreted?

Numbers, for being an early engy sample, don't look bad IMO. I don't know what Intel promised though.

Cheers!
January 30, 2013 3:19:28 PM

mayankleoboy1 said:
Or is it your hope that Haswell will (and should) be better than what these numbers show ? :p 

DrWho aka Francois Poedenal has said these numbers arent real, and his numbers are much better.
It could be that these are from an earlier ES, older bios etc etc.
Either way, its early on, they will get better, and yes, I do hope they get better
a b à CPUs
January 30, 2013 6:24:50 PM

Sorry, nothing interesting with those numbers. Seeing about a 7% gain in performance.
January 30, 2013 7:26:13 PM

I see it has moved~! What is new with haswell people?
a c 105 à CPUs
January 30, 2013 9:13:28 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
DrWho aka Francois Poedenal has said these numbers arent real, and his numbers are much better.
It could be that these are from an earlier ES, older bios etc etc.
Either way, its early on, they will get better, and yes, I do hope they get better


This "review" if you want to call it that says nothing except that Haswell is in the ES stage and somebody in Asia leaked one. We know that the first item happened and the last one happens so often that it's barely newsworthy :lol:  I would expect more benchmarks that actually say something to occur in the next few months.
January 30, 2013 10:21:28 PM

If they are launching in June Haswell is passed the ES phase. Companies would be testing w/ QS right now. Actually, maybe that's how this Russian site would have gotten their ES..as the original recipient would be moving onto QS.
January 31, 2013 1:36:27 PM

RussK1 said:
Looks as though the improvements will be in TDP and graphics.

http://oclab.ru/news/pervyie-rezultatyi-testirovaniya-p...

http://hwbot.org/newsflash/1907_oclab.ru_grabs_scoop_on...()_first_benchmark_performance_results


Unless I totally missed it, I didn't see anything in there regarding the abilities of the iGPU...

Has there been any information released regarding where Haswell's graphics will fall in relation to Ivy Bridge, Trinity, etc.?
    • Previous
    • 2 / 10
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
      • 1
      • 2 / 10
      • 3
      • 4
      • 5
      • 6
      • 7
      • 8
      • 9
      • 10
!