Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Broadwell Won’t be Available to Consumers Until 2H 2014

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 30 comments
Tags :

Intel's next-gen Broadwell chips won't be available until late 2014.

As an expected follow-up to a story we posted earlier this week, Intel CEO, Brian Krzanich has announced that while Broadwell chips will begin production in Q1 of 2014, they won't be available until a bit later next year. As we mentioned in our previous story, the delay has been caused by a "defect density issue," or in layman's terms, too many defective chips per circuit print.

Intel is confident that it has remedied the problem, and that its follow-ups to the Haswell line will be available in a year's time. Even so, the shift in production deadlines leaves a lot of unanswered questions, not the least of which is whether or not these CPU generations are going to start getting longer and longer.

Before too much longer, Intel and AMD and pretty much everyone else in the fab business is going to hit one barrier they can’t break – the laws of physics. As these chips get smaller and smaller, those manufacturing challenges increase, and while those chips mean tons of improvements for the consumer including lower cost, more efficiency, and better performance, after 3 nanometers quantum tunneling becomes a huge problem, and we won't be able to get any smaller.

After the 14 nm process that the current chips use, we'll have the 10 nm, the 7 nm and then finally the 5 nm.

Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

Discuss
Display all 30 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 1 Hide
    JOSHSKORN , October 25, 2013 5:15 PM
    I'm waiting on Haswell-E series, hope this isn't affected.
  • 0 Hide
    ingtar33 , October 25, 2013 5:15 PM
    not a surprise. Intel has been running into the physics issues involved in sub 22nm engineering for a while. it's what's holding up AMD and Nvidia from going to 20nm... the engineering problems at that size are quite large. the physics stops working right as you approach atomic sizes, bringing up whole new issues.
  • 0 Hide
    Amdlova , October 25, 2013 5:17 PM
    (tons of improvements for the consumer including lower cost) 2% 5% improvements and premium price... No intel i will be with my 3770k for a long long long time...
  • 5 Hide
    Innocent_Bystander , October 25, 2013 5:36 PM
    "No intel i will be with my 3770k for a long long long time... "

    I'm sure Intel is glad to count you among its happy customers :) 
  • 1 Hide
    InvalidError , October 25, 2013 6:06 PM
    Quote:
    I'm waiting on Haswell-E series, hope this isn't affected.

    Haswell-E would be on the same 22nm as all the Ivy Bridge and other Haswell designs so there is no reason for those to be affected by the 14nm hiccups.
  • 0 Hide
    Draven35 , October 25, 2013 6:16 PM
    Quote:
    not a surprise. Intel has been running into the physics issues involved in sub 22nm engineering for a while. it's what's holding up AMD and Nvidia from going to 20nm... the engineering problems at that size are quite large. the physics stops working right as you approach atomic sizes, bringing up whole new issues.


    I hope we all appreciate the irony of big problems working at tiny sizes :D 
  • 1 Hide
    clonazepam , October 25, 2013 6:18 PM
    The i7-2600k is still going strong at 4.6ghz, 24/7. I need ddr4 at over 3000mhz and a reason to use it before I cheat on her.
  • 0 Hide
    InvalidError , October 25, 2013 6:23 PM
    Quote:
    I hope we all appreciate the irony of big problems working at tiny sizes :D 

    If you like huge machines working with tiny stuff, you must love the LHC!

    The irony of "big.LITTLE" does not get much better than that... at least not within the scope of what science can be carried out directly on this planet.
  • 0 Hide
    Draven35 , October 25, 2013 6:53 PM
    Quote:

    If you like huge machines working with tiny stuff, you must love the LHC!

    The irony of "big.LITTLE" does not get much better than that... at least not within the scope of what science can be carried out directly on this planet.


    Sure, I got an interesting story about the use of GPU processing at the LHC from a CERN guy I met at GTC 2013.

  • 2 Hide
    Wamphryi , October 25, 2013 6:53 PM
    Quote:
    (tons of improvements for the consumer including lower cost) 2% 5% improvements and premium price... No intel i will be with my 3770k for a long long long time...


    Or right up until your Motherboard dies and you can't find a replacement which is normally the case. Right now there is a large number of Lynnfield and Core 2 CPU's gathering dust with no Motherboards to call home for example.
  • 2 Hide
    aggroboy , October 25, 2013 8:33 PM
    I assume DDR4 consumer will be 2H 2015 :/ 
  • 0 Hide
    jimmysmitty , October 25, 2013 10:04 PM
    Quote:
    I'm waiting on Haswell-E series, hope this isn't affected.


    Haswell-E is not affected because its still 22nm. Only Broadwell and if there is a Broadwell-E will be affected.
  • 0 Hide
    Mhawk13 , October 26, 2013 6:27 AM
    Quote:
    Sure, I got an interesting story about the use of GPU processing at the LHC from a CERN guy I met at GTC 2013.


    Let's hear it.
  • 1 Hide
    gsxrme , October 26, 2013 8:23 AM
    Yep. Guess its more 2600k at 5.1ghz. And 16GB 2200mhz ddr3 is here to stay till 2015
  • 1 Hide
    MANOFKRYPTONAK , October 26, 2013 2:41 PM
    Things are always impossible. We could not figure out how Bees fly. Flying was impossible. I could list plenty more, the point is these barriers are puzzles that get figured out and we work around or with them. I believe that the same will hold true for computer parts.
  • 0 Hide
    gmax9000 , October 26, 2013 5:50 PM
    You can do it Intel!! My good old 2600k still runs at a spritely 4.8 Ghz, broadwell will get ironed out by summer. I'm looking forward to DDR4 and PCI-E 4 hopefully all these updates come out around the same time, I'm gonna build me a sweetheart of a machine!
  • 0 Hide
    InvalidError , October 26, 2013 9:10 PM
    Quote:
    Things are always impossible. We could not figure out how Bees fly. Flying was impossible. I could list plenty more, the point is these barriers are puzzles that get figured out and we work around or with them. I believe that the same will hold true for computer parts.

    Flying does not require pushing the fundamental laws of physics as we currently understand them to the breaking point. Chipmaking on the other hand is pushing the limits of how close to theoretical limits economically viable manufacturing can go: you cannot make traces inside chips thinner than the minimum required to ensure continuity including a margin to accommodate the manufacturing processes' variances and getting closer to that theoretical minimum requires tightening tolerances that much further across the whole process.
  • 0 Hide
    Grandmastersexsay , October 27, 2013 4:48 AM
    Don't die shrinks only increase profitability of chips and not performance? There are other ways of accomplishing that goal that don't involve disrupting the space time continuum. How about cheaper manufacturing through better automation? I'm also sure that a company as large as intel could trim some fat if AMD made them. I'm sure there are ecconomy of scale solutions as well. Does intel really need to offer so many variants and do they really need to release a new chip every year? I'm sure the cost of R&D rivals that of the actual silicone.
  • 0 Hide
    kirilmatthew , October 27, 2013 5:07 AM
    This was expected to me, I have been predicting it for the last 6mths. Its not good news for Intel though, and it will only get worse and worse as they try to get smaller.
  • 0 Hide
    InvalidError , October 27, 2013 6:50 AM
    Quote:
    Don't die shrinks only increase profitability of chips and not performance?

    Smaller CMOS transistors have lower gate capacitance which allows faster switching using less power and shorter distances reduces propagation delays between gates. Both of those factors should allow faster chips.

    A fair chunk of those margins is lost to reduced core voltages which reduce CMOS gate drive voltage and the associated output currents leading to smaller switching time improvements than otherwise possible and most of the rest is spent on cramming extra logic between flip-flops to improve IPC - this would be the other reason (aside from TIM under the heat-spreader) why Intel's newer CPUs have generally lower overclock margins: critical paths got longer/deeper logic-wise.
Display more comments