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, August 12, 2021 - link
Distinguishing between editorial content and reporting separates the domain of fair and ethical reporting from one of advocacy. I think most major news organizations don't even let the same people who do reporting participate in op/ed.To suggest that all editorials are instances of "casual and sloppy thinking" just shows you don't really know what you're talking about.
mode_13h - Thursday, July 29, 2021 - link
You're missing the point, and yet you attack *my* post for being stupid. Which is really just a half-step away from an "ad hom".The point isn't that journalists should faithfully parrot what Intel says. I'm all for critical analysis of their claims, among other things. I don't even know why you'd think I wasn't.
The point is that they shouldn't try to *directly influence* the behavior of those they're reporting on. That violates impartiality, and I think you can see some of its more subtle effects in this article.
I worry that you're focusing so much on attacking me that you're losing the plot. I don't mind if you disagree with me, but when our exchanges cease to be productive, then it's veering in the direction of trolling.
wut - Thursday, July 29, 2021 - link
It's okay to not be charitable in your interpretations, but I don't believe your interpretation to be correct. It isn't a matter of Ian trying to appeal to Intel in order for Intel "to look better for itself"... It's a matter of whether or not a new naming convention that's more in line with the rest of the industry would reduce confusion and- yes- makes for an environment where the truth comes out more easily. To advocate for the truth- Isn't that also a journalist's job?mode_13h - Sunday, August 1, 2021 - link
> To advocate for the truth- Isn't that also a journalist's job?Nothing about Intel's convention is more truthful. If he were advocating for them to publish real density figures, that would be different. That *is* advocating for more transparency, and I think that's appropriate.
Oxford Guy - Thursday, July 29, 2021 - link
'I worry that you're focusing so much on attacking me that you're losing the plot.'mode_13 in a nutshell. Always tossing in blithe 'crystal ball/ouija board/tarot card' ad homs, whilst simultaneously feigning occupancy of the high road.
Consider yourself fortunate that I'm still replying to your posts at all.
GeoffreyA - Friday, July 30, 2021 - link
I support what Ian is doing, but what mode_13h is trying to say is, that by putting his hand in it, Ian is no longer an objective/impartial observer. He has influenced what he was observing and is now a part of that setup. In practice, though, not a problem, and his predecessor used to do the same thing.GeoffreyA - Friday, July 30, 2021 - link
Also, when you do something for someone, or even advise them, you tend to become more kindly disposed towards them.mode_13h - Sunday, August 1, 2021 - link
Yes, that's my point.mode_13h - Sunday, August 1, 2021 - link
> In practice, though, not a problemHow can you know? We can't run the counter-factuals and see what his coverage would be like had he not involved himself.
mode_13h - Sunday, August 1, 2021 - link
> Consider yourself fortunate that I'm still replying to your posts at all.Certainly not. Your replies are consistently rather vapid, offer little value to the discussion, and your posts serve mostly to derail it onto unrelated tangents. I think we'd probably do better without your contributions, entirely.