Intel Unveils Panther Lake Architecture: First AI PC Platform Built on 18A

[tooLongInEDA]

Intel was able to do 5 nodes in 4 years because the lead fab has the mission to lead, seed and the seeds transfer to another fab. It used to be every other year a new node, before all the difficulty starting in the 2010 until present. The Ronler Acres Moore Park complex is a grand scale. There is probably a cheaper way to do R&D but that is the Intel way. It worked better when fab lite wasn't a viable option as it is now.

On the topic of taking fab lite off the table for Intel, so they focus on the old tick tock, now that Intel's capital structure is different, with Trump and SoftBank and Nvidia, perhaps they can sack the board members who still want to see fab lite happen? Make a statement that fab lite is dead?

I do hope the official history (if one ever exists) doesn't record Pat Gelsinger's claim of 5N4Y as fact. If they'd really achieved that (with real, full nodes all going into full production), they wouldn't be where they are today. I'd happily never read about the supposed 5N4Y ever gain.

 

[MKWVentures]

I agree it probably won't be January.

But glass half full - there won't (likely?) be any retail TSMC N2 or Samsung 2nm products in Q1 2026 either..

Like meteor lake. they issue is not competition. For Intel, It is delivering to OEMs on the committed date

 

[Xebec]

I do hope the official history (if one ever exists) doesn't record Pat Gelsinger's claim of 5N4Y as fact. If they'd really achieved that (with real, full nodes all going into full production), they wouldn't be where they are today. I'd happily never read about the supposed 5N4Y ever gain.

This is kinda sticky because what is a real node these days? (danger of soap box incoming)

By TSMC's naming convention, N7 --> N3 is 5 distinct nodes (+4 nodes). Node 7, Node 6, Node 5, Node 4, Node 3. Yet in terms of density it's 2 nodes at most, and performance.. maybe as good as 1 node of Dennard scaling?

We'll have to see how much better transistor performance is for 18A vs. Intel early Intel 10nm (Icelake), when Pat took over.

 

[MKWVentures]

I do hope the official history (if one ever exists) doesn't record Pat Gelsinger's claim of 5N4Y as fact. If they'd really achieved that (with real, full nodes all going into full production), they wouldn't be where they are today. I'd happily never read about the supposed 5N4Y ever gain.

Intel 7 was a renamed 10nm node in development in 2021. Intel 4 volume was incredibly low. Meteor lake was a expensive blip . Intel 3 (essentially a 4+) is ramping and wont peak for a while. Intel 20 was cancelled. 18A isnt shipping to consumers yet (It is unclear when it will).

Intel 7 (Raptor Lake and Sapphire Rapids) are still the volume leaders (Can we please see IFS revenue by Node?)

 

[hist78]

Intel was able to do 5 nodes in 4 years because the lead fab has the mission to lead, seed and the seeds transfer to another fab. It used to be every other year a new node, before all the difficulty starting in the 2010 until present. The Ronler Acres Moore Park complex is a grand scale. There is probably a cheaper way to do R&D but that is the Intel way. It worked better when fab lite wasn't a viable option as it is now.

On the topic of taking fab lite off the table for Intel, so they focus on the old tick tock, now that Intel's capital structure is different, with Trump and SoftBank and Nvidia, perhaps they can sack the board members who still want to see fab lite happen? Make a statement that fab lite is dead?

In order to truly develop a viable process you need to ramp it to some level in order to find the most obvious flaws. That is what people are referring to when they talk about "yield learning". You want your R&D team involved in that process early on, so I believe that doing this makes sense. It also makes economic sense, because you have invested in installing a process line to produce the wafers during development anyway. Knowing that it will take several months to get the next fab up and running on the new process why wouldn't you use that capacity to start building inventory for your initial launch while you wait for the HVM factory to come on line.

While Oregon has multiple fabs, they are in essence all really one big fab. While kind of hard to see exactly the red ovals in this picture show links connecting the clean rooms.

Just my opinion, but I feel like Intel's costs are higher because historically they didn't care. The goal was technology leadership and if that cost more, so be it. We live in a different world now and if Intel is going to be successful, they need to learn some hard lessons, including cost consciousness and developing robust processes with larger process windows.

My question is: if Intel’s Oregon fab needs to play both R&D and production roles, would that affect its R&D mission? As we all know, semiconductor manufacturing is a time consuming process. If the R&D fab gets tied up in a 50-day production run, it could hurt R&D effectiveness. Intel’s competitors and customers are all moving forward at an amazing speed. Can Intel’s R&D fabs truly focus on R&D?

 

[hist78]

Intel 7 was a renamed 10nm node in development in 2021. Intel 4 volume was incredibly low. Meteor lake was a expensive blip . Intel 3 (essentially a 4+) is ramping and wont peak for a while. Intel 20 was cancelled. 18A isnt shipping to consumers yet (It is unclear when it will).

Intel 7 (Raptor Lake and Sapphire Rapids) are still the volume leaders (Can we please see IFS revenue by Node?)

Despite being labeled by Pat Gelsinger as technically and cost-wise uncompetitive, Intel’s 7 process node is facing capacity shortages due to strong demand for older Intel products based on it.

After Intel 7, what really happened to Intel 4, Intel 3, and Intel 20? Why are Intel’s OEM customers still willing to buy more products built on Intel 7? Something doesn’t seem right.