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
Oxford Guy - Wednesday, August 11, 2021 - link
Says the person who said, in reply to one of my posts ‘we know you’re smart ... use your powers for good’.You typically post whatever sounds reasonable at a given time, no matter how inaccurate it is. I, by contrast, am capable of remembering what has been said — the positions that have been taken.
One cannot simultaneously claim I’m obviously intelligent and that my posts are valid. One cannot also post ‘agreed’ — as you did in another topic whilst pretending that my posts are vapid — unless you’re with that very vapidity.
I also find it droll that you employ the royal ‘we’ here. Are you a member of staff or merely that entitled?
Oxford Guy - Wednesday, August 11, 2021 - link
And... please — for the benefit of this forum...Learn the list of common logical fallacies. Your latest use of ad baculum is only worthy of yet another eyeroll.
mode_13h - Thursday, August 12, 2021 - link
> Says the person who said, in reply to one of my posts ‘we know you’re smart> ... use your powers for good’.
There's no logical inconsistency, there. Most of your posts seem to pull threads off-topic and offer little of value to the original subject. And quite a few are just snarky, cynical trolls.
> You typically post whatever sounds reasonable at a given time
I try to engage my brain and look at the other side of an issue, or at least from a perspective other than my narrow self-interest. And most often, what draws me to the other side of an issue is when someone takes an extreme position or makes absolutist statements that seem unjustified. If there's one thing you could say I consistently oppose, it's oversimplification.
> no matter how inaccurate it is.
Ah, now that's interesting. Accuracy is rooted in fact. And the facts are where you completely fall apart. You consistently fail to support your claims and assertions with good & relevant sources.
With that said, if I post something that's demonstrably inaccurate, then please do us *all* a favor and point it out. I never claimed to know everything or be infallible. I've even learned things from debates and spirited discussions.
> I, by contrast, am capable of remembering what has been said —
> the positions that have been taken.
This might blow your mind, but I have actually changed positions, on a few occasions. Not many, but I'm actually willing to re-evaluate my position, after looking at the arguments on both sides.
Also, I try not to be overly partisan, which is to say that I try not to take a side of an issue purely on the basis of political allegiance or preoccupation with self-consistency. If I think one side is overstating their case or otherwise acting in bad faith, I might come out against their position, even while I might've previously been supportive on another issue.
> One cannot simultaneously claim I’m obviously intelligent and that my posts are valid.
Why not? Intelligence describes the actor, while the writing of posts describes their actions. I can criticize the latter, without invalidating the former. Plenty of smart people do things that are thoughtless, counterproductive, antisocial, or worse. However, at some point, the actions do begin to define the actor.
> One cannot also post ‘agreed’ — as you did in another topic whilst pretending
> that my posts are vapid
I said they're "consistently", not "uniformly" or "without exception". If I thought you were a complete waste of time, then I wouldn't spend so much time replying to you.
> unless you’re with that very vapidity.
Well, I'm not going to claim I've never made a vapid post. I try to say things worth saying, but I'm not infallible. It is just a news comment thread, and I don't worry too much about a post here or there.
> I also find it droll that you employ the royal ‘we’ here.
It wasn't. I was speaking on behalf of myself AND other forum participants. That it was preceded by "I think", signifies it as a speculative statement. Others are welcome to disagree.
ikjadoon - Monday, July 26, 2021 - link
What? Intel has long sandbagged its numbers. Unfortunately, we've all decided to follow the marketing, so yeah, at least Intel is more honest now. But none of it matters until they deliver it. I'm not trusting any marketing announcements from Intel. I want the desktop / laptop CPU in-hand so that there's actual benchmarks.//
https://www.tsmc.com/english/dedicatedFoundry/tech...
Otherwise there's no need for the TSMC marketing dept to magically shrink the fake 16nm node to become a fake 12nm.
>An enhanced version of TSMC's 16nm process was introduced in late 2016 called "12nm".
https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/16_nm_lithography_pro...
mode_13h - Monday, July 26, 2021 - link
> at least Intel is more honest now.Wow, that sure takes some mental gymnastics to see Intel participating in the same disinformation race as "more honest".
You could say they're being more consistent... until TSMC and Samsung decide to rebrand their process nodes to stay ahead of Intel's naming.
All of this argues that it's an exercise in futility to pretend these names actually mean anything. They should just use codenames, or maybe a completely arbitrary schema involving sequential numbering + letters or Greek alphabet characters.
ikjadoon - Tuesday, July 27, 2021 - link
Sure, noted. "More honest" relative to the industry = more consistent. I'm flabbergasted how anyone has any problem with this, when literally no one had a problem TSMC & Samsung have done this for years, lol.OK? Why wouldn't TSMC & Samsung play more bullshit w/ foundry marketing? They started it a while ago, so it's more than expected to continue. Good technology has never needed exaggerations: Intel, TSMC, and Samsung all know that.
lol, this is just the tip of the iceberg of marketing. We don't need "i7" or "Ryzen 3", either. How deep do you want to go?
Node names *absolutely* mean something: it's the progression within a foundry. Almost nobody dual-sources CPUs any more, but everyone wants to play "Fantasy Nodes".
That's the more interesting problem. Why is the peak density leap between 10->7 larger than 7->4? Because, clearly, density is not the *only* metric involved in a node.
mode_13h - Wednesday, July 28, 2021 - link
> literally no one had a problem TSMC & Samsung have done this for years, lol.How do you know? Did you run a survey?
Unlike what Intel is doing, Samsung and TSMC never had a press conference to announce they're going to use more dishonest naming. If they had, you'd probably have seen the same kind of sentiment you're seeing when Intel did just that.
> Good technology has never needed exaggerations
That's not true. Not as long as exaggerations can help you sell a little more. Nvidia exgerates like all damn day, even while they've been sitting comfortably atop the heap.
> it's the progression within a foundry
Right, so the names just need to reflect that. Like I said, they should use sequential numbering for big steps, and then letter suffixes to denote minor iterations.
> density is not the *only* metric involved in a node.
All the more reason to cut ties between their naming and any pretense of density.
wut - Thursday, July 29, 2021 - link
"Right, so the names just need to reflect that. Like I said, they should use sequential numbering for big steps, and then letter suffixes to denote minor iterations"Tell TSMC, Samsung, along with everyone else to do it, at the same time.
(TSMC with its N7+, N5P, and Samsung with its 3GAE...)
If you want to apply some standard, apply it to everyone first. Lest you'd be the one who ends up looking agenda-ladened.
mode_13h - Sunday, August 1, 2021 - link
> Tell TSMC, Samsung, along with everyone else to do it, at the same time.The beauty of it is that Intel can simply opt out of the game, without requiring others to do the same.
> If you want to apply some standard
No, you don't have to replace a false standard with another standard (false or not). The point is just to drop the pretense that the node names really mean anything.
twtech - Tuesday, July 27, 2021 - link
A really bold move would have been to move away from "nm" naming altogether and call it 100D or something for 100 million transistor density.