Intel's Process Roadmap to 2025: with 4nm, 3nm, 20A and 18A?!
by Dr. Ian Cutress on July 26, 2021 5:00 PM ESTCustomers Customers Customers
As a roadmap announcement today, the focus isn’t so much on the customers but on the technology. Because Intel is moving into a phase where it expects its IFS offerings to compete against the established players, it has to consider its disclosures with respect to both its internal use and any external interest, which is a new concept for the company – at least on this scale compared to its previous foundry efforts.
Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger, in the company’s Q3 financial call last week, was keen to point out that they already have a large hyperscaler customer signed up for their next generation packaging technology, however today there would appear to also be another customer in the mix. Now we assume that Intel’s Foundry Services is talking to 100s of chip companies, big and small, but it doesn’t take much to sign an NDA to start to talk – what will be interesting is when customers start making commitments to using Intel’s facilities, and if any of those are volume orders.
As part of the announcement today, Intel held a little bit back from us, saying that they are saving some of the details specifically for the event that is going on as we publish this piece. All we know is that our draft press release has a big yellow bar that says ‘[customer news]’ on it, right next to Intel’s 20A process node details.
For reference, Intel 20A is a 2024 technology using first generation Gate-All-Around transistors, marketed as RibbonFETs, as well as backside power delivery, marketed as PowerVias. At this time Intel expects to have second/third-generation EMIB available as well as fourth-generation Foveros Direct. So if a customer is already committing to Intel 20A, there’s going to be a lot of potential here.
When the announcement is made, we will update this news article.
To conclude, Intel maintains that these roadmaps will showcase a clear path to process performance leadership* by 2025. It’s a tall order, and the company has to execute better than it has in recent memory - but that’s kind of why the company has rehired a number of former Intel experts and fellows in research, product design, and execution.
*as measured by performance per watt at iso-power
Here's a secondary comparison chart (compared to the one on page one) with all three main foundry offerings listed in each of the main segments that Intel has discussed today.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
326 Comments
View All Comments
mode_13h - Thursday, July 29, 2021 - link
Good journalism requires impartiality, which is hard to maintain when you're directly involving yourself in the agenda of those you're reporting on.Impartiality isn't about not having opinions. It's about separating them from one's reporting.
Oxford Guy - Thursday, July 29, 2021 - link
Impartiality is a myth.Everyone brings many biases, regardless of what label they stick on themselves. It's better to be open about those biases than to feign objectivity.
Come clean with one's biases (as much as one can, since they are a form of blindness) and, simultaneously, try to present the facts — clearly/thoroughly.
Your vision of a journalist sounds like a stenographer. Journalism is supposed to have activism as part of its function. That's what makes it different from stenography.
mode_13h - Sunday, August 1, 2021 - link
> Impartiality is a myth.How lame. Just because there's no such thing as a perfectly neutral reporter doesn't mean that journalistic standards don't still have value.
> It's better to be open about those biases than to feign objectivity.
This is a canard used to legitimize partisan media. Time and again, surveys of consumers of partisan media have been shown to be less well-informed about relevant subject material.
> Come clean with one's biases
Yes, conflict of interests should be disclosed. However, one should take reasonable measures not to *further* said entanglements. That makes objectivity even more difficult.
> Your vision of a journalist sounds like a stenographer.
No, and I already explained the difference.
> Journalism is supposed to have activism as part of its function.
No, but thanks for at least confirming your ignorance on the subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_an...
Activism should be reserved for editorials. There should be a bright line between reporting and editorial content.
> That's what makes it different from stenography.
No. Where it differs is by providing context and fact-checking.
Spunjji - Friday, July 30, 2021 - link
@mode_13h - I guess I just disagree with you that Ian has "involved [him]self in the agenda" of Intel by advocating for some sort of change in their process naming conventions. It's equally likely he was tired of having to write articles explaining the difference between foundry Xnm and Intel XXnm, and/or the difference between "++", "+++" and "ESF".GeoffreyA - Friday, July 30, 2021 - link
I've got to agree with Ian's trying to shake some sense into Intel.GeoffreyA - Saturday, July 31, 2021 - link
I think both points of view are right (mode_13h's and Oxford Guy's) and need to be combined.mode_13h - Sunday, August 1, 2021 - link
> both points of view are right ... and need to be combined.Um, how?
GeoffreyA - Sunday, August 1, 2021 - link
While perfect impartiality is hard to find, it does exist as an ideal which we've got to keep before us. Without that gold standard, practice would sink lower and lower.mode_13h - Sunday, August 1, 2021 - link
> I just disagree with you that Ian has "involved [him]self in the agenda"> of Intel by advocating for some sort of change in their process naming conventions.
What it does is give him a sense of ownership of their new process naming scheme, and that risks coloring his reporting. I'm not going to reread the entire article just to find examples, but I did note a few instances of what seemed to be favorable coverage. I can't say that's the result of his advocacy, but I wouldn't even have the question if he hadn't committed it.
> It's equally likely he was tired of having to write articles explaining the difference
> between foundry Xnm and Intel XXnm, and/or the difference between "++", "+++"
> and "ESF".
First, that's not a good excuse for advocacy. Reporters always face the issue of having to provide context for readers who haven't been following the subject closely. The magic of hyperlinks can be used to minimize the amount of repetition, by simply writing an explainer and linking to it from articles that deal with the relative differences between process nodes.
Second, he's still going to be in a similar position of potentially having to explain the differences between a given TSMC node and whichever Intel node is relevant. So, I don't see how this really improves the situation.
Oxford Guy - Wednesday, August 11, 2021 - link
Slapping the word ‘editorial’ onto a piece of writing doesn’t magically change it.All it does is typically label the piece an example of casual sloppy thinking.