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
velanapontinha - Saturday, September 26, 2020 - link
This!lilo777 - Friday, September 25, 2020 - link
It is stupid to criticize Intel for delivering a microprocessor that offers OEMs a flexibility to optimize the parameters for different use cases. If you want to know the performance, ask the OEMs (or don't be lazy and read the reviews).Spunjji - Friday, September 25, 2020 - link
Not stupid at all. It's entirely within their power to enforce certain design parameters. It's to their benefit not to, though - this way they can upsell higher-performing CPUs to unwitting consumers more easily.lilo777 - Friday, September 25, 2020 - link
Enforce what? Don't be ridiculous. Besides, system performance depends on many factors, not just CPU anyway. Whoever is buying a computer based solely on the CPU SKU deserves whatever they are getting anyways.Spunjji - Monday, September 28, 2020 - link
"Enforce what" - minimum performance / cooling standards? It's not that hard, Intel already have a bunch of standards that OEMs must adhere to. No validation, no sticker, done.Here's a bizarre idea - you could even have separate model numbers for OEMs to use depending on the performance their implementation is capable of. To pluck an idea out of thin air, you could add a U on the end for the ultra-low-power and add an H for high-performance. 😏
The rest of your post is just waffle. System performance depending on many factors doesn't mean it's okay to sell CPUs that perform differently under the same damned product name. Saying "it's up to the customer" doesn't absolve Intel of that deception in the first place. Next you'll be trying to sell me on your "multi-level marketing" scheme, caveat emptor.
Everett F Sargent - Friday, September 25, 2020 - link
Intel® Core™ i7-4770K Processor (4th Generation)https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/produc...
Q2'13, 22+ nm
Intel® Core™ i7-4790K Processor (4th Generation)
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/produc...
Q2'14, 22++ nm
Intel® Core™ i7-5775C Processor (5th Generation)
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/produc...
Q2'15, 14 nm
Intel® Core™ i7-6700K Processor (6th Generation)
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/produc...
Q3'15, 14+ nm (could not readily get one ubtil Q1'16, they sold the i7-4790k during that holiday season)
Intel® Core™ i7-7700K Processor (7th Generation)
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/produc...
Q1'17, 14++ nm
Intel® Core™ i7-8700K Processor (8th Generation)
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/produc...
Q4'17, 14+++ nm (ditto holiday season availability as for the 6th Generation)
Intel® Core™ i9-9900K Processor (9th Generation)
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/produc...
Q4'18, 14++++ nm (ditto holiday season availability as for the 6th/8th Generations)
Intel® Core™ i9-10900K Processor (10th Generation)
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/produc...
Q2'20, 14+++++ nm
Intel® Core™ i9-11666K Processor (11th Generation aka Rocket Lake)
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/produc...
Q2'21 (tbd), 14++++++ nm
Intel® Core™ i9-12666K Processor (12th Generation aka Alder Lake)
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/produc...
Q4'21 (tbd), 10 nm (ditto holiday season availability as for the 6th/8th Generations, widely available Q2'22)
Seven generations of 14 mn in seven years (on average) aka a one year cadance. Seven 14 mn generations in seven years! :(
Ahsan Qureshi - Friday, September 25, 2020 - link
5775C is 14nm, not 22nm++. 4770K and 4790K are fabricated on the same 22nm process. There is no 22nm+ or 22nm++..Everett F Sargent - Friday, September 25, 2020 - link
Process size follows generation in all cases, so 14 nm comes after 5775C. My nomenclature is very simple, each generation starts with no "+" subsequent nodes are appended with a "+" for each subsequent generation, so that 14++++++ is the 7th generation at 14 nm.If Intel can play the name game to hide their seven year stall at 14 nm and now at what appears to be 10 nm, perhaps Intel should just drop the XX nm altogether, go with 7XL for Rocket Lake and L for Alder Lake, when they get to 7 nm it would be M and 5 nm would be S.
Face it, Intel has so scotched up all their processor names and node names to date, Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum, G, L, X, K, KF, R, MX, XM, T, F, H, KFA and TKFC (Totally Krispy Fried Cooker). Intel has more processor and node names then they do processors!
Fulljack - Friday, September 25, 2020 - link
not true, both Broadwell (5775C) and Skylake (6700K) are built on the same 14nm process—probably a "slightly" optimized one, but Broadwell is based on Haswell that is process node shrink (Tick) while Skylake is based on new architecture (Tock).Spunjji - Friday, September 25, 2020 - link
Incorrect. Broadwell was the "first crack" at 14nm and Skylake's 14nm variant had improved characteristics on the process front, as well as a newer architecture. Yields for Broadwell were not as good, and it needed higher voltages, while high clocks were not as easily attainable as on a similar core design at 22nm (Hardwell). The process improvements ameliorated those issues.