Upcoming Hardware, Desktop Coming Later Appendix: Kaby Lake Fact Sheets


View All Comments

  • Drumsticks - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link

    To be fair, a 12% performance boost on mobile is pretty fair, considering it's higher than some new generations have managed with new uArchs or entirely new process nodes. Reply
  • tipoo - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link

    Tick Tock Toe Reply
  • TEAMSWITCHER - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link

    Can someone please explain to me Intel's product introduction strategy? Why would they want to sell the lower-cost non-Iris Pro Kaby Lake chips first? This makes no sense...essentially diluting the demand for the "better" chips by putting the "lesser" chips on the markets MONTHS before hand.

    I understand that PC makers love these "bread and butter" = "ho-hum" SKU's, and can't wait to sell "Kaby Lake" versions of products they are selling right now, but WOW! One would think that Intel would at least attempt to improve profitability by making the "better" (Iris PRO) chips available at the same time. I just don't see the logic...
  • rhysiam - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link

    They speculate on page 4 whether some retooling is required for the new 14nm+ process, and therefore whether perhaps only one or two fabs are going to be up and running early. If Intel has limited output it makes sense to direct early production to the valuable CPUs per mm2 of wafer... which is precisely these standard U and Y series processors (maybe some Xeon CPUs are higher earners, but the platform isn't ready yet). Mobile Iris Pro CPUs and most desktop processors require much more die area... meaning less output.

    All speculation at this point, but it is a possible answer to your question.
  • TEAMSWITCHER - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link

    Ok, that makes sense. I always thought they were the same chips - with the Iris Pro features disabled. But if they are smaller dies then the bottom up approach could help to perfect the process before switching to the larger dies - potentially reducing the number of defective chips. Thanks. Reply
  • A5 - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link

    It's yield and profit concerns. Doing the big chips first means they have to throw more of them away, which cuts down their profits. Reply
  • bryanlarsen - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link

    Smaller chips yield dramatically better when defects are high. Imagine a die that holds 100 large chips and there are 100 defects on the die. Some of the chips will have more than one defect so there will be a few chips that are good, perhaps 15-25 or so. Now imagine that you are putting 200 smaller chips on the same die with 100 defects. You'll get at least 100 good chips, perhaps 110-120. So unless you can sell the large chip for 6-8x the cost of the small chip, it's more profitable to start with the small chips when defect rates are high. Reply
  • retrospooty - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link

    The answer to almost any question like that is - they think it will be more profitable for them. They arent just thinking about the latest fastest thing, they are thinking about production, orders, volume and stock levels. Reply
  • quadrivial - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link

    The answer is most likely ARM.

    Intel has zero competition in the high-end CPU front. People who can't wait will pay just as much for last-gen chips because that's all that's on the market. People who can wait won't mind a few months (and don't really have an option). In contrast, Intel lives in fear of Qualcomm, Samsung, or AMD announcing an ARM chip competitive with x86. Taking a more aggressive stance and coming to market as soon as possible is what Intel shareholders will want to see.
  • CaedenV - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link

    True story. I can cry all I want about wanting a faster desktop chip, but the simple fact of the matter is that I will be forced to wait for Intel to release one because I am not tempted to move to AMD any time soon.
    But that the same time there are hundreds of schools debating between ARM and Intel chromebooks and chromeboxes, and whoever offers the lowest price is going to win the day. Releasing the smaller cheaper chips ASAP will prevent loosing those sales to ARM.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now