Intel Tapes Out Chips on 1.8nm and 2nm Production Nodes (Updated)

Intel
(Image credit: Intel)

Update 3/8/2023: Intel has pointed out a translation error with the report from UDN — the presentation shared with the press covered the previously-announced tape-out of internal test chips for the 18A and 20A process nodes, and test chips for a large potential foundry customer have taped out, and silicon is running in the lab. The development of the nodes is not final. We've amended the text below. 

Original Article:

Anton Shilov
Contributing Writer

Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.

  • zecoeco
    I don't see it coming to consumer products before at least 2025.
    Plus, delays are always possible...
    Reply
  • jkflipflop98
    Buy that INTC now while it's on sale.
    Reply
  • waltc3
    Wake me when they begin shipping CPUs in 1 to 2 nm....;) Intel has been absolutely super during the last five years at announcing things for the future that for one reason or another never materialize.
    Reply
  • thisisaname
    waltc3 said:
    Wake me when they begin shipping CPUs in 1 to 2 nm....;) Intel has been absolutely super during the last five years at announcing things for the future that for one reason or another never materialize.

    Aye research is the "easy" part putting it into mass production is a lot harder.
    Reply
  • Kona45primo
    They have had terrible yeilds on 14 & 10nm and missed the ARC deadline by a solid year... "The earliest Arc products will be released in "the first quarter of 2022" and will be based on a GPU codenamed "Alchemist," "

    That being said if they can get this to actually turn into viable production before it's outdated that would be amazing.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    "Power through the backside" sounds like something that could be a pain in the ass to implement. Sounds like it is going to require a crapton of vias, a suspicion further reinforced by "PowerVias" being a key point.

    I suppose if you unflip flip chips so they lie fat-silicon-down using TSVs for power and substrate IO, that makes the active electronics ~0.2mm closer to 3D-stacked stuff on top and the IHS for heat dissipation.
    Reply
  • Giroro
    This is "Intel 20A", not "20 angstrom", "Angstrom class", nor 2nm. The branding is designed to trick people into thinking it's related to size, when really it no longer has connection to any kind of sizing, whatsoever.
    It's not as bad as when comcast writes Mbps as MBPS or when a phone salesman straight tells you that Mbps stands for "Megabytes per second" which would be 8x faster than what they are actually selling ... but it's almost as bad. I'd still put it in the to 10 computer marketing lies. I'd say it's slightly better than Seagate confusing a judge into letting them redefine the measurement 1 GigaByte as 1 Billion Bytes, and slightly worse than Intel letting their partners pretend Optane SSDs counted as RAM. So, and about the same badness as Intel's P/E-core mismarketing nightmare.

    That said I'm already getting lost on what TSMC process Intel 20A is supposed to compete against. IIRC It will go up against and probably slightly behind TSMC N4 "4nm".
    If I remember right, Intel wishes they could be competitive with the following:

    IntelTSMC10 nm = Intel 7"7nm "N77nm = Intel 4NFF7+ or N6Intel 3N5Intel 20AN5+ or N4Intel 18AN3
    Reply
  • JamesJones44
    Giroro said:
    This is "Intel 20A", not "20 angstrom", "Angstrom class", nor 2nm. The branding is designed to trick people into thinking it's related to size, when really it no longer has connection to any kind of sizing, whatsoever.
    It's not as bad as when comcast writes Mbps as MBPS or when a phone salesman straight tells you that Mbps stands for "Megabytes per second" which would be 8x faster than what they are actually selling ... but it's almost as bad. I'd still put it in the to 10 computer marketing lies. I'd say it's slightly better than Seagate confusing a judge into letting them redefine the measurement 1 GigaByte as 1 Billion Bytes, and slightly worse than Intel letting their partners pretend Optane SSDs counted as RAM. So, and about the same badness as Intel's P/E-core mismarketing nightmare.

    That said I'm already getting lost on what TSMC process Intel 20A is supposed to compete against. IIRC It will go up against and probably slightly behind TSMC N4 "4nm".
    If I remember right, Intel wishes they could be competitive with the following:

    IntelTSMC10 nm = Intel 7"7nm "N77nm = Intel 4NFF7+ or N6Intel 3N5Intel 20AN5+ or N4Intel 18AN3

    I'm no fan of Intel, but TSMC does the same thing. N5, N5+ and N4 are actually the same node size. There isn't a great way to compare the two with current metrics TBH. Density would be a better way, though still not prefect, but I doubt we will get a better apples to apples way to compare nodes anytime soon.
    Reply
  • icmn223
    "Wang Rui, president and chairman of Intel China, said at an event that the company had finalized the development of its Intel 18A (18 angstroms-class) and Intel 20A (20 angstroms-class) fabrication processes."
    Wait, does that mean they are developing/manufacturing this in China? If so, isn't that a national security threat? I thought we were trying to keep the latest and greatest semiconductor tech. out of their hands for precisely that reason.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    Nice work, @jkflipflop98 !

    My concern about skipping 0.55 numerical aperture naturally goes to costs, but I'm sure the bean counters will have run the numbers and checked that it's both economically viable and competitive.

    In the nearer term, my main concern is with voltage and frequency scaling on Intel 4, but I guess we'll find out before long.
    Reply