Intel's Annual Report Indicates Second-Gen 3D XPoint Might be Delayed Until 2021

(Image credit: Intel)

According to comments in Intel’s annual report, the company’s second-generation 3D XPoint products – Alder Stream and Barlow Pass – might be delayed until 2021. Intel also admitted in the report that the increases in wafer capacity did not lead to the desired increase in CPU output.

Second-Generation 3D XPoint

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
  • InvalidError
    It wouldn't be modern-day Intel without things getting delayed by a couple of years.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    InvalidError said:
    It wouldn't be modern-day Intel without things getting delayed by a couple of years.
    Well, their 14 nm products seem to launch on time. In that case, the delays don't come in to the picture until you actually try to order them.

    Let's see if their dGPUs launch on schedule.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    bit_user said:
    Well, their 14 nm products seem to launch on time.
    Broadwell launched fashionably late and everything after Kaby Lake only exists because Intel needed something on the market while 10nm was "coming soon" like a horde of creeper zombies.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    Intel explained why the 25% increase in 14nm wafer capacity merely resulted in a low double-digit (10-15%) increase in PC supply. Intel attributed this to higher model volume, larger die sizes and more14nm chipsets (which continued to move from 22nm)
    That's what I've been saying. They had to add cores to keep up with AMD, which in turn hurts their supply crunch even more.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    InvalidError said:
    Broadwell launched fashionably late
    Yes, I didn't think you were going back that far, because all of their Skylake-branded products were basically on-time.

    InvalidError said:
    and everything after Kaby Lake only exists because Intel needed something on the market while 10nm was "coming soon" like a horde of creeper zombies.
    Be that as it may, they've been executing to their roadmaps, on launches of 14 nm products.

    The delays are all coming from 10 nm.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    bit_user said:
    Be that as it may, they've been executing to their roadmaps, on launches of 14 nm products.
    14nm products that were not meant to exist and are fundamentally the same Skylake as four years ago with some hardware fixes and more mature fab process. It would be highly problematic if Intel ran into any problems executing that.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    InvalidError said:
    14nm products that were not meant to exist
    Yeah, I get it. They represent a strategic fallback position that wouldn't have been needed if Intel could've executed on their 10 nm plans.

    However, you seem to be spinning a story where Intel literally can't execute on anything, whereas the reality is really just that specifically their 10 nm has been a disaster.

    InvalidError said:
    It would be highly problematic if Intel ran into any problems executing that.
    Intel has been rolling out new low-power cores, and their Gen 11 UHD iGPUs launched on schedule. The place hasn't fallen utterly to pieces. Not yet, at least.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    bit_user said:
    However, you seem to be spinning a story where Intel literally can't execute on anything, whereas the reality is really just that specifically their 10 nm has been a disaster.
    Successfully executing steppings/re-spins of Skylake for four "generations" isn't much of a technical or engineering feat. That's basement level expectations compared to how Intel used to successfully execute simultaneous node and architecture upgrades. It hasn't done either in a particularly meaningful way in four years. Yes, it added extra cores in the last two (soon to be three) generations, but that is little more than a copy-paste exercise in a ring-bus architecture.

    bit_user said:
    Intel has been rolling out new low-power cores, and their Gen 11 UHD iGPUs launched on schedule.
    Ice Lake isn't on schedule, the first time Intel put Ice Lake on a road map, it was supposed to launch two years ago.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    InvalidError said:
    Ice Lake isn't on schedule, the first time Intel put Ice Lake on a road map, it was supposed to launch two years ago.
    If you want to undermine my point, try citing something that slipped which isn't made on their 10 nm process.
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    InvalidError said:
    Successfully executing steppings/re-spins of Skylake for four "generations" isn't much of a technical or engineering feat. That's basement level expectations compared to how Intel used to successfully execute simultaneous node and architecture upgrades. It hasn't done either in a particularly meaningful way in four years. Yes, it added extra cores in the last two (soon to be three) generations, but that is little more than a copy-paste exercise in a ring-bus architecture.

    The architecture hasn't changed much, but the node optimizations weren't trivial. The Intel engineers have really accomplished something getting 8 core mainstream (ie high volume) CPU's up to 5GHz on 14nm. Rumors are that they'll make it to 10 cores at 5GHz before they get to 10nm.

    Ice Lake isn't on schedule, the first time Intel put Ice Lake on a road map, it was supposed to launch two years ago.
    I think you're confusing Cannon Lake with Ice Lake. Cannon Lake had one token CPU sku released about 18 months ago so Intel could claim they were shipping 10nm. Ice Lake was not on roadmaps 3 or 4 years ago.
    Reply