Intel 10nm Taped Out, Currytech running damage control

>>60857534
>wccftech

Disgusting.

>Log scale, not even labeled
>*Forecast
>~45%
Good try Schlomo

>>60857610
If Intel's recent success is anything to go by, they'll be delayed again.

>>60857534
cancer page from wccftech is archived here.
>http://archive.is/P1dLP

>>60857534
so is tiny ringbus better?

>>60858052
No.

>>60858063
smaller fires at least?

File: AMD-EPYC-CPU-740x416.jpg (26KB, 740x416px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 740x416px

>>60858131
Ringbus has scaling issues due to the size of the bus, number of buses and all the cores are on one die. Doesn't matter how small you make them if they're still all packed in one place on a monolithic die with shit yields. AMD figured out a better way.

>>60858131
No
The advantages of smaller nodes are diminishing.

>>60857534
GloFo's 7nm FinFET at the end of this year or early next year should be similar to 10-12nm by Intel's standards. So really Intel isn't that far ahead anymore. Also, according to Intel's own data, 10nm will perform worse on all fronts than 14nm++

File: intel ceo JUST.jpg (119KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1000x1000px

>>60858333
b-but Intel said they were the best ..

>>60858375
They were, but they got lazy.

>>60858333
>10nm will perform worse on all fronts than 14nm++
whats the point then?

>>60858406
More chips per wafer.

>>60858406
>whats the point then?
memes

>>60858406
higher yield rate, cheaper to make
but Jewtel still wont lower price of course :^)

>>60858406
Smaller dies, higher yields, cheaper price, and after some maturing 10nm++ should improve on 14nm++

>>60858452
>using the smiley with a carat nose

>>60858464
>higher yields
so... this seems like an inefficient strategy compared to AMD's in the long run

>>60858432
If memes aren't real, how can 10nm be real?

>>60858490
I'm really not sure how AMD is getting 80% yields on their Ryzen dies.

>>60857534
>TSMC
I want to see the same graph comparing it with GloFo instead.

>>60857653
If they're taping out 10nm right now, they absolutely are not getting their new processor out in 2017.

This is pure marketing for inteldrones too stupid to question the bullshit Intel is spewing.

Expect 10nm Intel CPU's at least 15 months after tapeout and more like 18 months. Which means it should be mid 2018 to early 2019 at best.

Worse yet, this is still Intel's "we don't give a fuck just add +5% performance from last gen" level of architectural development. For them to actually become competitive again they need to actually add some serious improvements which is going to take years to design.

I don't expect Intel to be competitive again until 2020-21

>>60858554
I mean, even if intel gets better yields on 10nm, the problem is their architecture requires all cores to be good on their high core count chips. Whereas AMD will just stitch together octocores with infinity fabric and have great yields. IF/when AMD goes to a smaller process, they'll just have even more good octocores to stitch together.

>>60858636
I'm talking about the individual zeppelins or whatever they're called.

>>60858631
>taping out
Made a mistake, it's taping in. Or maybe one is taping out and one is taping in? I don't know.

>>60858636
And the brilliance on top of this is we're now entering a point in time when people actually want higher core counts.
So not only can AMD produce higher core count CPU's for a fraction of the price that Intel can, but they've also pushed the market towards higher core counts on top of it.

In two years the standard CPU is going to be either a 6-core or an 8-core. People with 4-cores are going to be looked at like people with single or dual-core today. This completely destroys intel's minor singlethread performance advantage. The ass-raping that zen is giving Intel is unreal.

AMD has overnight become the defacto market leader. It's just not apparent to everyone yet.

Fuck I really should buy some of their stock.

File: this is what intelfags actually believe.png (74KB, 1618x220px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1618x220px

>>60858708
>in b4 this

>>60858742
You should probably add labels to indicate this is trying to show single and multithread performance at the same time

File: this is what intelfags actually believe.png (310KB, 1618x519px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 1618x519px

>>60858896

>>60859008
>tfw other synthetic benches are so shit, Cinebench, which was designed solely for testing video editing and visual effects design capabilities, is considered the gold standard

How long before Intel buys out Cinebench and the metrics are completely changed?

>>60859066
It'd be pretty hard for them to fuck with benchmarks based on real workloads.

>>60859102
Intel might pay Adobe to use the gimped algos if they detect AMD CPU.

>>60859117
Adobe's garbage code is pretty fucked even without Intel's intervention.

File: R4VK97n.jpg (359KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 800x800px

>>60859008

>delid kit sold separately

>>60857534
meanwhile amd is streaming down on 7nm with zen2....
oh man i just wanna see the tdp of the zen2 compared to 10nm ringbus

>>60857534
>10nm
enjoy no OC and paying $2k for K edition

>>60859066
Intel used to recommend cinnebench to benchmark performance, obviously doesn't anymore since AMD's FPUs (non SIMD) are notably more powerful

>>60859145
How long until Intel will start selling their own delid kits?