Intel 14nm Progress Update: Broadwell & Airmont On Schedule
by Ryan Smith on September 10, 2013 2:45 PM EST
Continuing our IDF 2013 keynote coverage, Intel is also using this morning’s keynote to announce progress updates on previously announced 14nm products. Intel’s plans here remain unchanged, with Intel seeing the exploitation of their fabrication advantages being one of the keys to better capturing the various mobile market segments, so Intel’s progress on their 14nm process and the resulting parts remains as something worth keeping an eye on.
First and foremost with Broadwell, Intel has confirmed that they are beginning 14nm production by the end of this year, with Broadwell being the lead product for the process. We expect to get some additional details on Broadwell later this week in other sessions, but Intel did make quick note of the fact that they’re seeing significant power savings with 14nm Broadwell over 22nm Haswell. Specifically Intel is already seeing a “30 percent power improvement” on battery longevity over Haswell with their early Broadwell silicon (being demoed at the show), with at least some expectation that they’ll see further improvements as they approach release quality silicon.
Meanwhile Intel has also reiterated that they will be following through on their earlier plans to accelerate Atom product releases to move from Intel’s n+1 node to their leading edge node, bringing Atom to parity with their desktop/mobile Core processors. To that end Airmont, Silvermont’s 14nm successor, is still slated for a 2014 release. The move from trailing nodes to leading nodes for Atom SoCs is perhaps the biggest sign of how Intel is treating the tablet/smartphone market this days, with the market being elevated from a secondary market to a primary market that receives (nearly) equal access to Intel’s latest fabrication technology, and by extension being a market that requires Intel’s most competitive products.
Source: The Verge
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
36 Comments
View All Comments
Casper42 - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link
"fact that they’re seeing significant power >gains< with 14nm Broadwell"Wouldn't it be easier to read if you said significant power SAVINGS with 14nm Broadwell?
I had to read that twice and the next line cleared it up for me.
Specifically Intel is already seeing a “30 percent power improvement” ...
zeock9 - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link
I'm sick and tired of Intel being focused on and caring more for 'battery longevity' improvements that would cater only to mobile/handheld markets rather than their DT audiences.I'm going to be very upset if Broadwell turns out to be another Haswell where DT enthusiasts were seemingly neglected amidst of AMD's lack of presence in the performance segments.
Fuck this shit.
AMD, you guys really need to step it up please.
stadisticado - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link
Why would they focus on desktop? The mainstream consumer doesn't want desktops. Intel knows this from sales figures and customer orders. Why would they spend excess money supporting a market segment that is small and shrinking?x347 - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link
Because wahhh they need to cater to MY needs, not what would be profitable for themHisDivineOrder - Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - link
I argue it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more they target battery life improvements, the less desktop and (to a lesser extent) laptop products they'll sell. As long as they're fighting ARM on ARM's home turf, they're going to keep losing because their chips have more performance in a "good enough" fight and never have enough battery life and/or cheap enough cost to keep up with ARM.If Intel wants to fight in a "good enough" world where cheap and battery life are the most important factors, then they need to work something out with MS to get Windows free. Otherwise, they're doomed to lose because Intel and Android is not going to do much.
Meanwhile, I'd argue they're alienating their own targetbase, which is why you're going to see them announcing next year or the year after that Haswell did so poorly they're focusing on Atom-like CPU's. The truth is Haswell is such a poor upgrade for enthusiasts they're ignoring it. IVB-E took two years to show up with ancient chipsets (no change) and old technology with little but downgraded overclocking to show for the trouble. The only thing Haswell-E has going for it is the no brainer 8-core instead of 6 core, so things look dire for the LGA20xx socket in general, but at least it's coming within a year.
Meanwhile, last I checked Intel is just doing another refresh (not even a dieshrink) of Haswell to suit the enthusiast market that already rejected Haswell as pathetic.
Perhaps if Intel had focused their resources on making a truly high end chip for the desktop/laptop markets while making a great battery life mostly high performance option for the thin laptops and tablets with Atom, they could use the nVidia strategy of having an expensive high end sell the medium to low end.
Instead, they've convinced even the enthusiasts at this point not to upgrade because they're obsessed with a market they aren't winning and aren't even close to winning. If they want to win it, they need to focus on it entirely and get costs down to the levels that would let them win it. As long as they think they can charge high margins, they're going to keep failing, great tech or not.
superjim - Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - link
Well said. Desktop Haswell was crap for enthusiasts and gave no reason to upgrade over Ivy or even Sandy. I fear the days of Wolfdale and Sandy Bridge overclocks are behind us.MikhailT - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link
Then you're going to be disappointed for a long time as DT has peaked a few years ago.There are more people buying laptops than DTs and that's where Intel is heading toward to make money. And since the mobile devices are increasing quicker than laptop/DT, Intel is also focusing on making mobile SoCs as well.
Hector2 - Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - link
zeock9 -- Get a grip. Broadwell is a SoC (System-On-a-Chip) in the MOBILE marketing segment where the focus is on smaller die size, lower power and lower cost. The Desktop & Server segments don't use SoCs because they target higher performance. The have bigger die sizes than Mobile as well as higher power and higher cost. Intel learned long ago that one size doesn't fit all in computer chipsMrSpadge - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link
A 30% improvement in power efficiency would be very welcome for us BOINC crunchers! I don't neccessarily need it in a socket (as long as the mainboard doesn't break under sustained load), but give me 4 cores with a GT3 GPU and eDRAM.. with unlocked multipliers, power etc. and I'll upgrade from Ivy!jwcalla - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link
Wouldn't a GPU be more power-efficient for BOINC?