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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Only problem with your theory is these chips are priced at well above the cost of a Chromebook processor. We are talking $2-400 for these chips. Arm processors can be less than $50. Not even the same league.
Intel has ceded the low end of the market to Arm with the discontinuation of atom.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
129 Comments
View All Comments
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.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.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.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.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.
doggface - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link
Only problem with your theory is these chips are priced at well above the cost of a Chromebook processor. We are talking $2-400 for these chips. Arm processors can be less than $50. Not even the same league.Intel has ceded the low end of the market to Arm with the discontinuation of atom.
fanofanand - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link
Intel charges more for the chip than most chromebooks cost.Meteor2 - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link
None of this stuff (KBL) competes with ARM, it's aimed squarely at Apple. Broxton is the ARM competitor.