Intel to Launch 7nm Process in 2021, 7nm Xe Graphics Architecture, Ice Lake Architecture

(Image credit: Intel)
Paul Alcorn
Editor-in-Chief

Paul Alcorn is the Editor-in-Chief for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.

  • Giroro
    I am very confused what "USB Type-C on-die " means.

    Isn't USB-Type C is a connector style, not really a version of USB.
    Reply
  • alextheblue
    Giroro said:
    I am very confused what "USB Type-C on-die " means.

    Isn't USB-Type C is a connector style, not really a version of USB.
    Marketectural enhancements!

    That aside, these ARE interesting times.
    Reply
  • valeman2012
    alextheblue said:
    Marketectural enhancements!

    That aside, these ARE interesting times.
    Well they are smart stepping back on Moore Law and let AMD CPU Business hit dead end on Moore Law first.
    Reply
  • alextheblue
    valeman2012 said:
    Well they are smart stepping back on Moore Law and let AMD CPU Business hit dead end on Moore Law first.
    AMD hasn't been following Moore's Flaw for a while now, and neither has Intel. Just because TSMC is slightly ahead of Intel on process rollouts doesn't mean Intel is intentionally "stepping back". They had ISSUES with their 10nm (equivalent to TSMC's 7nm), it's LATE.

    I know you're a fan of Intel, and that's totally cool. They've put out some really nice processors over the years. But that doesn't change the truth, so I'll just repeat this one more time: Intel didn't PLAN on waiting until 2020 to mass rollout 10nm. They ran into technical problems. End of story.
    Reply
  • Karadjgne
    He's also a fan of large print. As if the standard 15point isn't loud enough to get the point across. Just to be fair.

    Moore's Law is dead. It was dumb to begin with. Stating that a cpu will double in speed and capability every 2 years simply due to the amount of transistors a die can field is rediculous.

    By that reasoning, a current cpu would be operating at close to 13.6GHz as compared to a 6 year old FX at 3.4GHz and a fx8 has 1.2Billion transistors, an R7 2700 has 4.8Billion, so that math is wrong too.
    Reply
  • valeman2012
    alextheblue said:
    AMD hasn't been following Moore's Flaw for a while now, and neither has Intel. Just because TSMC is slightly ahead of Intel on process rollouts doesn't mean Intel is intentionally "stepping back". They had ISSUES with their 10nm (equivalent to TSMC's 7nm), it's LATE.

    I know you're a fan of Intel, and that's totally cool. They've put out some really nice processors over the years. But that doesn't change the truth, so I'll just repeat this one more time: Intel didn't PLAN on waiting until 2020 to mass rollout 10nm. They ran into technical problems. End of story.
    alextheblue said:
    AMD hasn't been following Moore's Flaw for a while now, and neither has Intel. Just because TSMC is slightly ahead of Intel on process rollouts doesn't mean Intel is intentionally "stepping back". They had ISSUES with their 10nm (equivalent to TSMC's 7nm), it's LATE.

    I know you're a fan of Intel, and that's totally cool. They've put out some really nice processors over the years. But that doesn't change the truth, so I'll just repeat this one more time: Intel didn't PLAN on waiting until 2020 to mass rollout 10nm. They ran into technical problems. End of story.

    Not fan of any AMD or Intel...the only fans i see is AMD Fanboys getting upset over the truth.. (You look at other sites articles relating to AMD or Intel comments (Joking around or not joking around) ...see how AMD Fanboys get upset.
    Just like many other games

    I am fan of none but i am only going for product that would be "better" for Gaming right which is obviously intel...(If AMD was "better" i would went there ...its not really choice...mostly go for the "better" product.
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    Karadjgne said:
    Moore's Law is dead. It was dumb to begin with. Stating that a cpu will double in speed and capability every 2 years simply due to the amount of transistors a die can field is rediculous.

    By that reasoning, a current cpu would be operating at close to 13.6GHz as compared to a 6 year old FX at 3.4GHz and a fx8 has 1.2Billion transistors, an R7 2700 has 4.8Billion, so that math is wrong too.
    Moore's law is about is transistor density. It says nothing about performance.

    With regard to FX 83xx vs R7 2700, you're forgetting about die sizes. The 2700 has about 6 times the density, meaning density doubled about 2.5 times in 6 years rather than 3 times as predicted my Moore's law. Not too far off really, despite the slowing of node progression.

    Edit: And Ryzen 3000 on 7 nm will be coming out soon (~7 years after FX 83xx), which may even bring things further in line with Moore's law.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    Karadjgne said:
    Moore's Law is dead. It was dumb to begin with. Stating that a cpu will double in speed and capability every 2 years simply due to the amount of transistors a die can field is rediculous.

    By that reasoning, a current cpu would be operating at close to 13.6GHz as compared to a 6 year old FX at 3.4GHz and a fx8 has 1.2Billion transistors, an R7 2700 has 4.8Billion, so that math is wrong too.
    It was never forecast to go on, forever. In 1965, it was forecast for at least a decade. Then, in 1975, another (and at a slower rate; source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law ). That doesn't make it dumb.

    Also, you misunderstand the speed increases as relating directly to clock speed. Being able to pack more transistors on-die enabled various sorts of optimizations that could reduce the number of clock cycles per operation, and then increase the number of operations that can be performed concurrently. So, it was the combination of clock speed and efficiency which delivered the observed performance gains.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    Giroro said:
    I am very confused what "USB Type-C on-die " means.

    Isn't USB-Type C is a connector style, not really a version of USB.
    Nomenclature aside, I assume the point was to support USB-connected displays.
    Reply
  • JaSoN_cRuZe
    If the rumors were true about AMD's Zen 2 chipsets, it would be a hard sell of Intel processors.
    I think by the time they release 10nm desktop parts, AMD would be sitting @ 5nm.
    Intel better hustle.
    Reply