Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday March 04 2020, @09:28PM   Printer-friendly
from the shrinking-lead dept.

Intel Says Process Tech to Lag Competitors Until Late 2021, Will Regain Lead with 5nm (archive)

It appears that 2020 and 2021 are going to be long years for Intel. CFO George Davis presented at the Morgan Stanley conference yesterday covering a wide range of topics, but noted that despite being "undoubtedly in the 10nm era," the company felt that it would not reach process parity with competitors until it produces the 7nm node at the tail end of 2021. Davis also said that Intel wouldn't regain process leadership until it produces the 5nm node at an unspecified date.

Davis commented that the company was "definitely in the 10nm era" with Ice Lake client chips and networking ASICs already shipping, along with the pending release of discrete GPUs and Ice Lake Xeons. Intel is also moving well along the path of inter-node development, which consists of "+" revisions to existing processes. Davis said the 10nm inter-node step provides a "step-function move" with the Tiger Lake chips based on the 10nm+ process as the company awaits its 7nm process.

However, Davis noted that in spite of the shipping products and pending "+" revisions to the 10nm process, its process node still lags behind competitors, stating:

"So we bring a lot of capability to the table for our customers, in addition to the CPU, and we feel like we're starting to see the acceleration on the process side that we have been talking about to get back to parity in the 7nm generation and regain leadership in the 5nm generation."

Previously:
Intel Launches Coffee Lake Refresh, Roadmap Leaks Showing No "10nm" Desktop Parts Until 2022
Intel's Jim Keller Promises That "Moore's Law" is Not Dead, Outlines 50x Improvement Plan
Intel Roadmap Shows Plans for "5nm", "3nm", "2nm", and "1.4nm" Process Nodes by 2029


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday March 05 2020, @05:01PM (2 children)

    by Freeman (732) on Thursday March 05 2020, @05:01PM (#966982) Journal

    It's called, having to focus on security issues, while developing the next latest and greatest thing. Which likely were using said tricks, but left gaping security holes. So, they can't use those tricks anymore.

    --
    Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2020, @07:45PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2020, @07:45PM (#967058)

    I think the trend seems to be that you get your product out first and then try to focus on making it secure later. From a marketing perspective that makes a lot more sense. It's easier to start with and sell a new less secure product now that does more and is easy to use and to try to make it more secure later than to start with a more secure product that does less and is harder to use and then try to add features later on. That's because it takes longer for users to compare how secure one product is to another than it does for them to compare the functionality and ease of use of one product to another.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2020, @11:36PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2020, @11:36PM (#967150)

      That is answering an architectural question which drives the schematic. That's another interesting story.

      I was asking a process question as to why they are behind at least two different other companies?

      It takes both tick and tock to be great in that area. I pointed out tick, you pointed out tock. Both together makes a sad story.