You are currently viewing SemiWiki as a guest which gives you limited access to the site. To view blog comments and experience other SemiWiki features you must be a registered member. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/11854/1185403/High-NA-EUVL-exposure-tool--key-advantages-and-program/10.1117/12.2600951.full?SSO=1 "Buildings, cleanrooms and equipment are being constructed, mirror production is ramping up, many tests are carried out to ensure a...
This is likely a confirmation from Intel China, since Gelsinger had also mentioned the 20A/18A tapeout earlier. What's emphasized this time is the completion of the design. The Chinese actually says 20A,18A process is taping out.
This is likely a confirmation from Intel China, since Gelsinger had also mentioned the 20A/18A tapeout earlier. What's emphasized this time is the completion of the design. The Chinese actually says 20A,18A process is taping out.
Intel 4 - second half 2023
Intel 20A - first half 2024
Intel 18A - second half 2024
With the rollouts so close to each other, will some of Intel's products/technologies become less attractive or obsolete too quick?
Can Intel's customers such as HP, DELL, Lenovo, Asus, and Acer adapt to such rapid schedule without worrying about their inventories become outdated too early?
Can Intel recoup the expensive cost for its leading edge fabs under such rapid rollout schedule?
Yes and no. Intel 4 will be obsolete when intel 3 comes out and intel 20A will be obsolete with 18A. Not much different than how intel 7 made 10nm SF obsolete or how N5P made N5 obsolete. Intel said that these nodes were forward compatible though so this isn’t an issue. Intel 3 will still serve a purpose after 18A is out because it is their best finFET and it will be farther along it’s yield/depreciation curve(s). To say intel 3 would be obsolete would be like saying N7 was obsolete after Apple made their first N5 chips.
Can Intel's customers such as HP, DELL, Lenovo, Asus, and Acer adapt to such rapid schedule without worrying about their inventories become outdated too early?
For one AMD still sells zen 2 parts as Ryzen 7000 series and they still fly off the shelf. Two keep in mind the products and dates.
According to intel’s schedule 2023 will see intel4 client and pat has reiterated that 2024 will see 20A client products on store shelves. This is a normal upgrade cycle. Intel 4/3 xeons need an even more mature process due to the larger die sizes. For this reason launching in 2024 rather than 2023 makes sense.
By this logic could they not recoup the rapid pace of investment between 14, 14+, 14++, 14+++, and 14++++ one after the other? Intel 3 is an enhanced version of intel 4 and Intel 18A is an enhanced version of intel 20A, so there is probably very little extra expense to recoup. Intel has also said this was part of the beauty of foundry. That way intel can actually make money after the fabs depreciate rather than hoping tools could be jury rigged to work for new nodes when fabXX converted from say 90nm to 32nm. Heck they even used to be on a 4yr tool deprecation curve because of how rapidly fabs were being converted to their newest nodes.
Intel 4 - second half 2023
Intel 20A - first half 2024
Intel 18A - second half 2024
With the rollouts so close to each other, will some of Intel's products/technologies become less attractive or obsolete too quick?
Can Intel's customers such as HP, DELL, Lenovo, Asus, and Acer adapt to such rapid schedule without worrying about their inventories become outdated too early?
Can Intel recoup the expensive cost for its leading edge fabs under such rapid rollout schedule?
Perhaps we should be careful with Intel roadmaps. Reminder: Intel 4 (7nm) completed development many years ago.... QUOTE from Intel in 2014: "Intel to hit 10nm in 2016, with 7nm CPUs arriving in 2018" ... lets see when the products actually are available. I would focus on Intel 4 and Intel 3 shipments before we have the party for Intel 18A. Just an opinion.
Perhaps we should be careful with Intel roadmaps. Reminder: Intel 4 (7nm) completed development many years ago.... QUOTE from Intel in 2014: "Intel to hit 10nm in 2016, with 7nm CPUs arriving in 2018" ... lets see when the products actually are available. I would focus on Intel 4 and Intel 3 shipments before we have the party for Intel 18A. Just an opinion.
By this logic we should have 100% confidence intel 4 is launching this year. Tigerlake in September 2020 (4 years later than 2016) was the first top to bottom mobile lineup on the 10nm family and finally had compelling PPW over 14nm revisions. In my opinion intel 4 is a far less ambitious node than 10nm, and is coming 5 years after that initial statement on when 7nm products would ship.
By this logic we should have 100% confidence intel 4 is launching this year. Tigerlake in September 2020 (4 years later than 2016) was the first top to bottom mobile lineup on the 10nm family and finally had compelling PPW over 14nm revisions. In my opinion intel 4 is a far less ambitious node than 10nm, and is coming 5 years after that initial statement on when 7nm products would ship.
Perhaps we should be careful with Intel roadmaps. Reminder: Intel 4 (7nm) completed development many years ago.... QUOTE from Intel in 2014: "Intel to hit 10nm in 2016, with 7nm CPUs arriving in 2018" ... lets see when the products actually are available. I would focus on Intel 4 and Intel 3 shipments before we have the party for Intel 18A. Just an opinion.
Everything takes 3.1x longer than expected (the pi factor). That's just the way it is. I am amazed that any of this stuff works at all. 3D stacking, magnetic RAM, FETs in the Z dimension, multipatterning... I still think you guys are crazy.
Everything takes 3.1x longer than expected (the pi factor). That's just the way it is. I am amazed that any of this stuff works at all. 3D stacking, magnetic RAM, FETs in the Z dimension, multipatterning... I still think you guys are crazy.
The clear implication of what you just wrote here is that schedule/delivery failure is tolerated for Intel's internal projects, but not for Qualcomm ... . While I can imagine that might be the case, it certainly shouldn't be.
The clear implication of what you just wrote here is that schedule/delivery failure is tolerated for Intel's internal projects, but not for Qualcomm. While I can imagine that might be the case, it certainly shouldn't be.
The implication is what you want it to mean? Or you can just ask me.
The implication is that 18A is a full chip process and QCOM is a full chip company that has mastered the multi source foundry strategy. Who better to partner with on 18A?
The implication is what you want it to mean? Or you can just ask me.
The implication is that 18A is a full chip process and QCOM is a full chip company that has mastered the multi source foundry strategy. Who better to partner with on 18A?
Don't think I'm disagreeing about the benefit and discipline of working with Qualcomm. I'm merely observing that an external customer appears to be necessary - in my experience it often is. But perhaps Qualcomm has a more immediate market need for 18A than the internal designs.