Intel 10nm reddit. 10nm ESF/Intel 7 might close some of the gaps with TSMC's 4 year old 7nm process. Apple already released their 10nm A11 chip with a whopping 4. Intel is certainly working on their true next-gen, but for now they're doing some pretty amazing stuff on 10nm. 7nm, however, is still just two years away according to the company. While I understand than the TSMC 7nm is almost the same as intel's 10nm, its area is still smaller (14 x 7 compared to 10x10?)… It's 10 nm enhanced super fin (10ESF) and has been rebranded to Intel 7 so as not to make intels node seem inferior to its competition, and as it's roughly on par in terms of transistor density with what TSMC calls their 7nm process. In the x86 titan's first-quarter earnings call Thursday [PDF], the Intel launches its 3rd Generation Xeon Scalable, formerly Ice Lake. After a tumultuous 2024 that saw the company removed from the Dow Jones Industrial Average and report a staggering $18. Even though Ice Lake's 10nm CPU and 14nm PCH companion chip mean that manufacturers no longer need to buy and find space to integrate a Thunderbolt 3 controller or a full Wi-Fi module onto their laptop or desktop motherboards, there are still additional components they'll need to source from Intel to make it work. How much of Intel's problem that comes from trying to get enough performance out of 10nm is anyone's guess. Intel 7 is 54nm by 44nm, TSMC 7nm is 57nm by 40nm. Just look at how Intel's 10nm Cannon Lake process was a downgrade from 14nm++ and it was first launched in 2018, but took them until 2021 Alder Lake to actually be an improvement from 14nm++. Being able to jump ahead to 1. To live up to my flair: Remember AMD exists, their current offering is good and they are slated to have 7 nm before Intel's 10 nm in mainstream chips. Intel 4 is an improvement over Intel 7 which in turn is a relaxed version of Intel's original plans for 10nm. The big what-if: If Intel had bankrolled GF's 7nm fab plant after their senior management realized and accepted that 10nm was going to remain a dumpster fire for years, and immediately started working on a backup plan back in 2014-2016. I also think the Intel 10nm vs TSMC 7nm comparison is moot now that TSMC is on 7nm+ which is 20% denser than n7. Qualcomm announced they're shifting the Snapdragon 8+ Gen1 from Samsung 4nm to TSMC 4nm and getting a 30% perf/watt improvement. In the past five years Intel has optimized 14nm on numerous occasions with each new release adding a "+". 3B transistors on 87mm 2 die. Posted by u/dragon_irl - 178 votes and 104 comments Intel has NOT made a mainstream consumer 10nm product yet. In early days of 10nm, 5-6 years ago, Intel claimed process delay issues will be resolved within a year (took them several years), and here we are in 2020, same 6 months delay story on 7nm from a different CEO. So even if Intel actually gets 10nm to volume next year (because they've been saying it will be next year for 2+ years already) then that actually represents a massive gain for AMD. So we'll see how they do with Meteor Lake in 2023 on 7nm, which should be competing with AMD's Zen 5 on TSMC's second-generation 5nm process. Essentially they can take the "easy way" while Intel might have had to consider other options to reach their performance goals. Intel's new nodes don't immediately scale up and compare to TSMC new nodes. Samsung also has a 10nm chip in their Galaxy S8. 82 votes, 44 comments. Intel's 10nm process for instance is about the same transistor density of the 7nm processes of TSMC and Samsung. Intel 10nm Yield Shock! 💀: Ian Cutress comments on why Intel back ported Sunny Cove This thread is archived New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast 86 comments Best Intel already released few 10 nm chips, but they are essentially weak laptop chips. For starters, Intel's 14nm process is still pretty dense, in general Intel's process nodes are of similar geometry to the next node down of its competitors. Footnotes: This article contains a lot of information about Intel 10nm and its pluses, it also contains my opinion and some speculations about it I'm making this article because of two main reasons: Intel has NOT made a mainstream consumer 10nm product yet. 8nm/2nm nodes would be game changing as Samsung/TSMC are on 5 nm right now and planning to go to 3 nm by 2025. Considering they both are manufactured on simillar nodes. They have been trying to mature 10nm and transition since late 2017. I believe at this point that Intel's 10nm is a write-off for high-frequency cores. The size of the lithography isn't as straight-forward as you might think. The past year has been incredibly rocky for the tech company, with reactive product . Analysis Intel promises that a costly ramp in production of 10nm processors, which includes the forthcoming Sapphire Rapids server chips, will pay off in the second half of the year to counter a slowdown in the PC business. Also we know Intel 3 is where most of the power consumption improvements are, as they will make their next-gen Xeon processors on it. Intel is planning 7 nm with a shrink of factor 2. I have zero confidence that any 10nm chip that Intel will make will be of high-quality. Hence why Intel 10ESF is now Intel 7. Intel, in a move comparable to its competitors' Performance Rating system from the 1990s, has invented a new naming scheme for its in-house foundry nodes to claim technological parity with contemporaries such as TSMC and Samsung, that are well into the sub-10 nm class. They have some 10nm laptop chips and some in server but the majority of their production is still on 14nm. The foundries used 40nm which you can do with double patterning, but for 36nm you need quad patterning. Here's just what it is. Ryzen 4000 will be on 7nm+, so that will be Intel's direct competition by the time 10nm actually ramps. It used to be the distance between transistor gates, but not anymore. Intel has been stuck on 14 nm forever with little success in 10 nm and 7 nm nodes. 30%! Funnily enough, even Intel itself can't compete with its own process in terms of frequency and 10nm will be used for laptops and server processors first, with desktop models not being confirmed yet at all (possibly late 2020 on 10nm+?). It seems to be behind in density, power/efficiency, and yields. It's worth mentioning that you can't directly compare node sizes between Intel and TSMC (AMD) processors -- Intel's 10nm is about the same in terms of performance and transistor density as TSMC's 7nm, and Intel's 7nm is about the same as TSMC's 5nm. It's an indicator of how advanced and dense the node is, relative to their own process node. Even then - There's no standardized method at all. 4 of 10 nm. They what are the issues they are having with 7 nm? If the rumors about Rocket Lake being a more general backport of Intel's 10nm processors to 14nm are true (and they may not be), then it will have taken Intel more than 3 years to get a 10nm part redesigned for a different node. 7 billion net loss, the "Silicon Giant" is currently in the throes of a high-stakes transformation. Or even Intel 7 - a redesigned FINFET provided the same increase in performance/watt vs Intel 10nm as actually shifting from "10nm" to "7nm". Intel 10nm is as advanced and dense AMD 7nm for example. Intel's 10nm was supposed to arrive almost five years ago and start to replace 14nm. I'm curious why you think Intel 10nm/10nm SF is as good or better than TSMC 7nm. And compare this to Intel 3/Intel 4: Meteor Lake, rumored MTL-U refresh when ARL launches, massive Granite Rapids and Sierra Forest tiles Intel 3/Intel 4 really should have way more capacity than Intel 18A/Intel 20A, at least in late 2024. Intel 7 is basically equivalent to TSMC 7nm. [7][38] As of February 17, 2026, Intel Corporation (Nasdaq: INTC) finds itself at the most critical juncture in its 58-year history. At Intel's absolute best hopes 14nm comes no where near TSMC 7nm and the planned 10nm is only just ahead of TSMC 7nm anyway, but I don't think many people would be surprised if adjusted (and likely never to be released) numbers for the node put whatever Intel manage to really ship on 10nm falls short of TSMC let alone their own targets for 10nm. It is based on following tweet I posted yesterday (the discussion was started by Ashraf's tweet Discover the real story behind Intel's 10nm struggles and their plan to keep it alive. Intel has admitted that its own 10nm shortfall happened as a result of overly aggressive positioning on its part. (And this is based on their old 10nm, not the one they're shipping now) Their vastly superior 14nm node was really the only advantage intel had over ryzen (Even with the slight IPC disadvantage, you can't tell me a Ryzen cpu that can clock like an Intel cpu wouldn't be a better value), and with that advantage gone, they're not "destroying It happened with 22nm to 14nm, and again with 10nm (which was a colossal disaster), from which they salvaged Intel 7, where fmax can reach 6 GHz and more! Intel 4 is not the disaster that 10nm was, which bodes well for Intel 3. Fabricated on the company’s 10nm process, those server chips go up to 40 Sunny Cove cores and offer a 20% IPC improvement over the prior generation. If Intel 10nm is simillar to TSMC 7nm, then Current Intel architecture is inferior to AMD architecture. Back in 2021, Intel decided to switch up how it labels its architecture roadmap, and we're now on Intel 7. Meanwhile, Intel will move into 10nm production by mid-2017, with 7nm slated for 2018 or 2019, sources said Did Intel not announce they were skipping 7nm and going straight to 5? Intel noted that they'd successfully implemented RibbonFET gate-all-around (GAA) architecture and PowerVia backside power delivery in their 20A process, accelerating 18A development. The TSMC 7nm node used by AMD has density of about 66 MT r/mm ². Back in the i586 era, when Int Intel, the chip giant and x86 extraordinaire, is finding its 10nm process node shrink neither easy nor cheap. Looks like Intel are producing a coffee lake chip (quad core, 14nm) for the canon lake socket (10nm) to fill in the product line with the 10nm dual core which should be an indication of their current issues. Obviously something is causing yields and productivity to be too low to make the full shift. If these mobile guys got to 10nm already, why were the desktop guys so late? Both Nvidia and AMD wont have 10nm or below even in 2018. Cannon Lake's fused off GPU wasn't a fluke, and high frequency applications are out of the question. Intel has been using the same CPU architecture and process since 2015 for some CPUs, especially for desktops. Under the leadership of CEO Lip-Bu Tan, who took the Team morale suffers heavily in such situations -- it happend at Intel with Merced 20-25 years ago, and 10nm is Intel's process-technology Merced all over again. Intel is a mti billion dollor company, they have their own fabs. Dec 25, 2013 · In this post I will analyze Intel's 10nm a bit more concretely from a density point of view. Laptops' CPU and GPU performance is heavily dictated by their cooling and power delivery circuitry. But they are for example using cobalt interconnects while some analysts questions if this is even needed for 10nm. Again, my big thanks to RWT forum member who kindly shared Intel's IITC paper with me. Because they have the same number as a competitor's node does not mean they're comparable. It happened with 22nm to 14nm, and again with 10nm (which was a colossal disaster), from which they salvaged Intel 7, where fmax can reach 6 GHz and more! Intel 4 is not the disaster that 10nm was, which bodes well for Intel 3. However, 10nm only arrived late last year in what seems to in limited release as a much lower than usual number of laptops launched with it. Intel's Arrow Lake family of processors, which were meant to use Intel 20A, will instead have dies sourced from "external partners" and packaged by Intel. Using Intel 14/14+/14++, as reference the 10nm+ node used in Icelake could have a density of about 90 MT r/mm ². Intel's naming was the off one and very confusing for everyone, they are trying to change it to fit the new numbers with similar-ish Transistor density, Intel's 10nm has very similar transistor density to TSMC's 7nm for example. As for Intel 10nm vs TSMC 7nm, well Intel's 10nm doesn't really work right now but it should be denser and superior than first gen TSMC 7nm, whilst inferior to 2nd gen EUV TSMC 7nm. ) Actually launched: All production "10 nm" processes are based on FinFET (fin field-effect transistor) technology, a type of multi-gate MOSFET technology that is a non-planar evolution of planar silicon CMOS technology. Even with 10nm things get interesting, 7nm Glofo is seemingly a match for 10nm Intel while 14nm Intel is firmly a large step ahead of Glofo 14nm. It's 10 nm enhanced super fin (10ESF) and has been rebranded to Intel 7 so as not to make intels node seem inferior to its competition, and as it's roughly on par in terms of transistor density with what TSMC calls their 7nm process. Intel will have but only in the latter end of 2018. It got manhandled into fighting trim for mobile, but the fact that Xe is using TSMC is telling. Thus, TSMC is 14 nm at 147 million transistors / mm in 5 nm and Intel at 242 million transistors / mm in 7 nm. I'm pretty convinced the 10nm delay is due to the 36nm metal pitch that Intel tried to use. The 7nm label was chosen for marketing purposes. EDIT: Forgot to add, there is more to it than transistor density, but transistor density is probably the most important variable when determining how a process The Intel Iris Xe graphics hardware is essentially the predecessor GPU developed prior to the Intel ARC Alchemist discrete video card architecture. Intel's battle against AMD and the future of processors revealed! The Intel 10nm node used in Canonlake has a density of about 100 MT r/mm ². Its not just on Reddit but on other places too, Someone would ask, "what is the max safe core voltage?" and there are brainlets in every corner Aug 23, 2025 · The pain in Intel's transition from 14nm to 10nm is pretty well documented, but I was wondering what were Intel's original plans for Desktop and Server architectures before 10nm started to slip? (What cores were we supposed to have, besides Cannon Lake - what was removed from the roadmap, etc. The tested benchmark performance levels has the GPU perform above that of a GT 1030 but substantially less than that of a GTX 950. 5rxuy, gcry, 5wl2z, pnvdu, z38zt, dy9bs, ejoc, nhiy, rhjl, krkn,