I think 2019-2020 will be super interesting for hardware. Intel, Samsung, Gloflo, TSMC could all have competitive 7/10nm nodes. Unless either Intel or AMD makes some crazy IPC gains they should be fairly competitive with each other and it will be interesting to see what the ARM giants can do as well. Hopefully Chinese investment into DRAM/NAND starts to come to fruition by then too.
“Because of the production difficulties with 10nm, Intel has revised its density target back to 2.4X [from 2.7X] for the transition to the 7nm node.”<p>Ouch. A day late and a dollar short.<p>They claim that this new node will still be better than TSMC’s new node, but we are now in leapfrog mode aren’t we? Where you have a year advantage on your competitor and then they will have the best tech but you’ll be halfway to unseating them again?
Can someone explaing why it's important to increase the density instead of increasing the size of a CPU?<p>Knowing nothing about chip design I'm probably thinking about this the wrong way but socket backwards compatability aside is it not feasible to simply increase the chip size? Is a higher density more rewarding?
It seems like we're going to have to stick to 16GB of RAM on MacBook Pro for another 1.5 years or so, aren't we?<p>From what I understand LPDDR4 as part of Cannon Lake is directly affected by this delay.
A good time to bring up: <a href="https://newsroom.intel.com/editorials/moores-law-setting-the-record-straight/" rel="nofollow">https://newsroom.intel.com/editorials/moores-law-setting-the...</a>
>Second, in today’s world Moore’s Law can be delivered only by a few companies. Every new process node gets harder and therefore more expensive.
[...]
>So, no, Moore’s Law is not ending at any time we can see ahead of us.<p>while Moore's original paper: <a href="http://www.monolithic3d.com/uploads/6/0/5/5/6055488/gordon_moore_1965_article.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.monolithic3d.com/uploads/6/0/5/5/6055488/gordon_m...</a>
was always about the trend of putting _more_ components in a chip being more cost effective than keeping the number of components constant. Surely if this were still the case we'd have seen Skylake++++ with cores << n by now.
Does this create a situation where Apple will be forced to switch away in order to differentiate, or does Intel plan to offer other kinds of improvements to their larger customers? Sounds like greater vertical integration will become a key differentiator. Admittedly, if the gaps between ARM and x86 chrome books are any indication, there’s still some room for Intel to be competitive. But does that hold for someone targeting a higher price point and with more control end-to-end?
Are we talking about the lithographics process itself as a problem or other manufacturing problems like VIAs, etching, diffusion? The article is a liitle bit vague on the actual problems Intel is experiencing. But I doubt Intel will us, anyway ;)
So only NUCs will get Cannon Lake after all? With rumors that it contains a discrete Radeon 500 GPU it might be the first cheap Steam Box for everyone...
Ok, so they are delaying it again without a reasonable explanation why except that "it is hard". But the real question is:<p>Does it meltdown ?