Intel Foundry Roadmap Update - New 18A-PT variant that enables 3D die stacking, 14A process node enablement

Intel Foundry
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

Intel's new CEO Lip Bu-Tan took to the stage at the company's Intel Foundry Direct 2025 event here in San Jose, California, to outline the company's progress on its foundry initiative. Tan announced that the company is now engaging lead customers for its upcoming 14A process node (1.4nm equivalent), the follow-on generation of its 18A process node. Intel already has several customers with plans to tape out 14A test chips, which now come with an enhanced version of the company's backside power delivery technology dubbed PowerDirect. Tan also revealed that the company's crucial 18A node is now in risk production with volume manufacturing on schedule for later this year.

Intel also revealed that its new 18A-P extension, a high-performance variant of the 18A node, is now running through the fab with early wafers. Additionally, the company is developing a new 18A-PT variant that supports Foveros Direct 3D with hybrid bonding interconnects, enabling the company to stack dies vertically on top of its most advanced leading-edge node.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
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.

  • Heiro78
    I don't get the naming scheme. I woulda thought the lower the number the better/ smaller architecture
    Reply
  • EzzyB
    I keep hearing that 18A is "faster, but less dense." I know the site is almost exclusively interested in whatever is faster! 😁 What is the use case for something that's maybe not quite as fast, but more dense. Just size of the chip? More space for more things on the chip? Maybe cheaper to make?
    Reply
  • EzzyB
    Heiro78 said:
    I don't get the naming scheme. I woulda thought the lower the number the better/ smaller architecture
    Oh that one is easy. Let the old timer tell you! 😜

    In the old days "NM" was the measure, in nanometers, of the separation of different components, mainly transistors on a chip. I say the old days because "NM" ceased to have any real meaning around the turn of the century (300 NM nodes.) So that is the standard that was set, and then broken long ago.

    Notice in the article Tom's says something like "2nm equivalent." That's because 1.8A of 2.0 or whatever aren't really accurate anymore. It's marketing.

    A half decade ago or so there was a big hullabaloo about how TMCS had advanced to "7nm", but Intel was stuck on "10 NM". But, if you looked at the chips, while not exactly the same, they were, in fact quite comparable.

    So, in the beginning the naming scheme was about the size of features on the chips. The smaller the size the more features you could put on the chip. But, as I said. It's really misleading now. I think we're actually somewhere around 17-20 actual nanometers still even though the branding has gotten away from all companies involved.
    Reply
  • DS426
    EzzyB said:
    I keep hearing that 18A is "faster, but less dense." I know the site is almost exclusively interested in whatever is faster! 😁 What is the use case for something that's maybe not quite as fast, but more dense. Just size of the chip? More space for more things on the chip? Maybe cheaper to make?
    Yes, probably more focus on chip features and definitely size of the chip where taking up space on advanced node wafers is getting more and more expensive. This would mean that performance optimization would literally come at the trade-off of higher cost.
    Reply
  • User of Computers
    Didn't seem to affect the stock price much lol. Guess investors don't really care about the progress?
    Reply
  • Pierce2623
    EzzyB said:
    I keep hearing that 18A is "faster, but less dense." I know the site is almost exclusively interested in whatever is faster! 😁 What is the use case for something that's maybe not quite as fast, but more dense. Just size of the chip? More space for more things on the chip? Maybe cheaper to make?
    GPUs would be better on “denser but not quite as fast”.
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    Hm... Does the market and investors even believe this?

    I'm not asking that in a sarcastic or mean way. I honestly don't know (or think) if people believe Intel can pull this aggresive roadmap, because it is rather aggressive.

    Regards.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    -Fran- said:
    Hm... Does the market and investors even believe this?

    I'm not asking that in a sarcastic or mean way. I honestly don't know (or think) if people believe Intel can pull this aggresive roadmap, because it is rather aggressive.

    Regards.
    What do you think is aggressive about it?!
    New node two years after the previous one, that's pretty normal.
    Reply
  • jkflipflop98
    User of Computers said:
    Didn't seem to affect the stock price much lol. Guess investors don't really care about the progress?
    I've learned a long time ago that investors and analysts are pretty much idiots. They have no idea what's going on. I read "expert analyst" blurbs all the time and they're so far off the target that I can't help but to laugh. And those are the people the investors are listening to. It's literally the blind leading the blind.
    Reply
  • jkflipflop98
    Heiro78 said:
    I don't get the naming scheme. I woulda thought the lower the number the better/ smaller architecture
    For the longest time, the nm metric described the distance from the contact points on the transistor - basically the size you could make the entire transistor. Then at some point in the 2000's it kind of morphed to the smallest structure you could fab. Then it turned into the width of the smallest line you could lithographically imprint. Now it's just lost all meaning whatsoever. Intel was the last holdout that actually measured from contact to contact. We stopped doing that with 7nm and just started going with the flow. If everyone else is going to lie, may as well follow suit.
    Reply