What Products Use Intel 10nm? SuperFin and 10++ Demystified
by Dr. Ian Cutress on September 25, 2020 9:00 AM ESTThe AnandTech Decoder Ring for Intel 10nm
The reason why I’m writing about this topic is because it is all a bit of a mess. Intel is a company so large, with many different business units each with its own engineers and internal marketing personnel/product managers, that a single change made by the HQ team takes time to filter down to the other PR teams, but also filter back through the engineers, some of which make press-facing appearances. That’s before any discussions as to whether the change is seen as positive or negative by those affected.
I reached out to Intel to get their official decoder ring for the 10++ to new SuperFin naming. The official response I received was in itself confusing, and the marketing person I speak to wasn’t decoding from the first 2018 naming change, but from the original pre-2017 naming scheme. Between my contacts and I we spoke over the phone so I could hear what they wanted to tell me and so I could tell them what I felt were the reasons for the changes. Some of the explanations I made (such as Intel not wanting to acknowledge Ice Lake 10nm is different to Cannon Lake 10nm, or that Ice Lake 10nm is called that way to hide the fact that Cannon Lake 10nm didn’t work) were understandably left with a no comment.
However, I now have an official decoder ring for you, to act as a reference for both users and Intel’s own engineers alike.
| AnandTech's Decoder Ring for Intel's 10nm | ||||
| Product | 2020+ | First Update |
Original |
|
| Cannon Lake | - | - | 10nm | |
| Ice Lake Ice Lake-SP Lakefield (compute) Snow Ridge Elkhart Lake |
10nm | 10nm | 10+ | |
| Tiger Lake SG1 DG1 |
10nm Superfin |
10+ | 10++ | |
| Alder Lake First Xe-HP GPU Sapphire Rapids |
10nm Enhanced SuperFin |
10++ | 10+++ | |
For clarity, 10nm Superfin is often abbreviated to 10SF, and 10nm Enhanced Superfin to 10ESF.
Moving forward, Intel’s communications team is committed to explaining everything in terms of 10nm, 10SF, and 10ESF. I have been told that the process of moving all internal documents away from the pre-2017 naming to the 2020 naming is already underway.
We reached out for Intel for a comment for this article:
It is widely acknowledged within the industry that there is inconsistency and confusion in [our] nanometer nomenclature. Going forward, we will refer the next generation 10nm products as 10nm SuperFin technology-based products.
My take is that whoever had the bright idea to knock Ice Lake down from 10+ to 10 (and then Tiger from 10++ to 10+ etc.), in order to protect the company from addressing issues with the Cannon Lake product, drastically failed at predicting the fallout that this name change would bring. Sometimes a company should accept they didn't score as well as they did, admit the hit, and move on, rather than try and cover it up. So much more time and effort has been lost in terms of communications between the press and Intel, or the press and engineers, or even between the engineers and Intel's own communications team. Even the basic understanding of dealing with that change has been difficult, to the detriment of the press trying to report on Intel’s technology, and likely even on the financial side as investors try to understand what’s going on.
But, truth be told, I’m glad that Intel moved away from the ++++ nomenclature. It allows the company to now easily name future manufacturing node technologies that aren’t just for pure logic performance, which may be vital if Intel ever wants to become a foundry player again.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
143 Comments
View All Comments
drexnx - Friday, September 25, 2020 - link
except that's categorically untrue. Each revision of the 14nm process has improved upon the previous, notably so.look at how poorly the initial Broadwell clocked and scaled (they didn't even release mainstream performance 5xxx chips!) vs. Cannon Lake and tell me they're the same process.
drexnx - Friday, September 25, 2020 - link
er, vs. Rocket lake not Cannon lake.(too many lakes...)
AMDSuperFan - Friday, September 25, 2020 - link
Where can I compare the Rocket Lake? Maybe you have the insider know how?Smell This - Friday, September 25, 2020 - link
Kaby 14nm 'backed-up' from the original design, and Chipzillah dumped tock-tick for **PAO**
When you say, "Each revision of the 14nm process has improved upon the previous" ... that would be incorrect.
dotjaz - Friday, September 25, 2020 - link
Except you can wrong and it does mean something. They have different design rules FFS. You can't just call it 14nm when in reality you must redesign and tape out again.dotjaz - Friday, September 25, 2020 - link
*areSpunjji - Friday, September 25, 2020 - link
Agreed. 10a, 10b etc. would also work.jamesindevon - Friday, September 25, 2020 - link
Ian, you are being way too polite to Intel.I don't blame you: you want to keep your contacts fairly happy. But Intel have now reached a point where customers just can't tell what they're buying.
It's not just the process names. It's not just the crazy numbering scheme, although if it wasn't for ark.intel.com, it would be.
We've long had the situation where laptop OEMs can change the effective performance of a processor by changing the effective TDP, but with Tiger Lake Intel have been taking things way further. We're now at the position where it is effectively impossible to choose between laptops based on performance, because you just can't tell how the processor will perform. The OEMs won't tell you how they've configured their laptops beyond a processor model number.
I, for one, am giving up on Intel marketing. If I want performance I can be fairly sure about, it looks like I have to buy AMD (and they're not as consistent as they should be, due to different laptop thermals. They don't have the option there: Intel do, but aren't taking it.)
Jerry Pournelle once wrote that "years ago when AT&T tried to market PC's I said that if they bought Colonel Sanders they'd advertise hot dead chicken." Intel seem to have forgotten that dig.
ikjadoon - Friday, September 25, 2020 - link
>We're now at the position where it is effectively impossible to choose between laptops based on performance, because you just can't tell how the processor will perform.Intel's misleading and backhanded TDP tactics aside: "the CPU model doesn't tell you the performance" has been true since Kaby Lake R, when Intel first moved to quad-cores.
Look at the massive score variation between i5-8250U CPUs: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i5-8250U-...
There is genuinely no "one benchmark score". These might as well be different process nodes and in wildly different places in the product stack. It's impossible to know what power limits have been chosen.
Ever since laptops became thermally constrained, every notebook's TDP (PL1) / PL2 / Tau and thus performance is completely configurable and not standardized.
This blame also should go back to laptop manufacturers, as well, who damn well know the TDP (PL1) / PL2 / Tau that they explicitly programmed and designed around.
HP picks a 35 W PL2. Dell picks a 50 W PL2. Acer's Efficiency mode, if chosen, sets a 25 W PL2.
In the end, I hope AMD sticks it to Intel by demanding AMD OEM manufacturers to clearly label their long-term and short power limits. Nothing but competition will force Intel to change.
Spunjji - Friday, September 25, 2020 - link
This. 👍