Intel kills 10nm ?? oO

[smilingcrow]

A stronger intel will be good for competition as at the moment the top end pricing for Desktop and HEDT is much higher than it’s ever been.
We don’t want a situation where that becomes almost normal as it has with GPUs.

Well that's just complete horse. Not even remotely true.

yep it's not true at all. I've love that person to show us how the $ per core has supposedly gone up because it looks like it's gone down. for instance let's look at high end desktop the 3950x $ per core is nearly half that of the 9900k and 8700k. So how can anyone try and say it's become more expensive

If you look at what I actually wrote you will see that you have missed the point I made.
I said that PRICES at the top end are MUCH higher than they have ever been and I didn’t mention performance per $ or cores per $.
I was thinking more of the last 10 years as prior to that we did see the top bin desktop chips going for $1k but that’s a long time ago.

My point is that 5 years ago in January 2015 at the top end we had:
i7-4790K 4C 22nm $350
I7-5960X 8C 22nm $999

Now we have:
RYZEN 9 3950X 16C 7nm $750
RYZEN THREADRIPPER 3970X 32C 7nm $1,999
I’m ignoring the 64C chip as it’s in another class and doesn’t change the argument I am making.

Say that TSMC’s 7nm is roughly equivalent in density terms to Intel at 10nm.
So in 5 years we have gone through 2 full node changes which equates to roughly quadruple the silicon
density.
The number of cores have quadrupled also so that’s a good fit unless the cores are much more complex.
But prices have at least doubled in this timescale as the figures above show but without getting significantly more silicon for this doubling.
Wafer costs have increased but does a 3950X cost so much to make that a $400 price premium is warranted for the silicon size?

The 3950X doesn’t have an iGPU which helps reduce the size and cost, plus it's made of small chiplets which have great yields.
So there are also factors here which are actually lowering the cost versus 5 years ago.
The 3970X doesn’t have an iGPU advantage versus the Intel HEDT chip but it has a bigger gain in the chiplet department as the Intel chip is monolithic and big with it, so the yield advantage is greater than with the desktop chips which is smaller in Intel’s case so has less of a yield issue.
Does a 3950X cost so much to make that a $1,000 price premium is warranted for the silicon size?
I don’t think so for either Desktop of HEDT but I blame Intel for the current high price of CPUs.
Firstly, because in mid 2016 they pushed HEDT up to $1,750 from $1,000 which set the precedent.
Secondly, they haven’t been able to get past 14nm so they can’t compete in terms of transistors per chip, hence the lower core counts.
Without competition AMD have been able to extend the top price point and especially for desktop.
Without these two things from Intel we may well be seeing proper competition with 16C for $400-450 and 8C at $200; for current generation.
The irony is that Intel have created a situation that allows AMD to push the envelope pricing wise which must mean their margins are amazing.
The downside is that current prices are roughly double what they were 5 years ago for the amount of silicon you get.
So as I said in the initial post, the danger is that this becomes normal as with GPUs.
So we need Intel to keep AMD honest and AMD to keep Nvidia honest.

Maybe some of you were confused because you weren’t around when chip performance per $ would increase regularly without the actual prices doubling.

 

[Grim5]

But your claim is misleading.

These chips aren't actually in the same tier since you want to look at overall pricing. The 3950x is so far ahead of everything else - the 4790k was never far ahead, it was just another quad core chip like all the others.

It's like saying "last year BMW's most expensive car was the M6, this year it's the M8 - the car prices keep going up!"

I understand where you coming from, you're pooint of view is that you want to have the top of the line and you want it to be affordable, we've seen a lot of people say this in recent years. But for CPU's the tiers have changed - top of the line isn't what it used to be - it was easy for intel to sell quad cores for $350 because they were easy to make and had the same number of cores as their lower tier chips, only difference was binning of the cores. Where as the 3950x and 3600x are fundamentally very different parts and you can't expect their prices to be similar.

 

[Doobedoo]

But your claim is misleading.

These chips aren't actually in the same tier since you want to look at overall pricing. The 3950x is so far ahead of everything else - the 4790k was never far ahead, it was just another quad core chip like all the others.

It's like saying "last year BMW's most expensive car was the M6, this year it's the M8 - the car prices keep going up!"

I understand where you coming from, you're pooint of view is that you want to have the top of the line and you want it to be affordable, we've seen a lot of people say this in recent years.

Tbf he sounds just like 4k

 

[smilingcrow]

But your claim is misleading.

These chips aren't actually in the same tier since you want to look at overall pricing. The 3950x is so far ahead of everything else - the 4790k was never far ahead, it was just another quad core chip like all the others.

It's like saying "last year BMW's most expensive car was the M6, this year it's the M8 - the car prices keep going up!"

I understand where you coming from, you're pooint of view is that you want to have the top of the line and you want it to be affordable, we've seen a lot of people say this in recent years. But for CPU's the tiers have changed - top of the line isn't what it used to be - it was easy for intel to sell quad cores for $350 because they were easy to make and had the same number of cores as their lower tier chips, only difference was binning of the cores. Where as the 3950x and 3600x are fundamentally very different parts and you can't expect their prices to be similar.

Have you never heard of Moore's law?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law

Your car comparison is terrible.
Never mind, if you are happy to not gain the full benefit of reduced cost per transistor, knock yourself out.
As you were.

 

[Grim5]

Have you never heard of Moore's law?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law

Your car comparison is terrible.
Never mind, if you are happy to not gain the full benefit of reduced cost per transistor, knock yourself out.
As you were.

ok let me put it another way for you.

the 4790k was never actually high end, it's just a binned mid range CPU. Amazing right? I know - the actual high end was the the 6 and 8 core CPUs that intel refused to let desktop users have (not talking about xeons level core counts) - so the 3950x at $750 that's actually cheap

 

[jigger]

If you look at what I actually wrote you will see that you have missed the point I made.
I said that PRICES at the top end are MUCH higher than they have ever been and I didn’t mention performance per $ or cores per $.
I was thinking more of the last 10 years as prior to that we did see the top bin desktop chips going for $1k but that’s a long time ago.

My point is that 5 years ago in January 2015 at the top end we had:
i7-4790K 4C 22nm $350
I7-5960X 8C 22nm $999

Now we have:
RYZEN 9 3950X 16C 7nm $750
RYZEN THREADRIPPER 3970X 32C 7nm $1,999
I’m ignoring the 64C chip as it’s in another class and doesn’t change the argument I am making.

Say that TSMC’s 7nm is roughly equivalent in density terms to Intel at 10nm.
So in 5 years we have gone through 2 full node changes which equates to roughly quadruple the silicon
density.
The number of cores have quadrupled also so that’s a good fit unless the cores are much more complex.
But prices have at least doubled in this timescale as the figures above show but without getting significantly more silicon for this doubling.
Wafer costs have increased but does a 3950X cost so much to make that a $400 price premium is warranted for the silicon size?

The 3950X doesn’t have an iGPU which helps reduce the size and cost, plus it's made of small chiplets which have great yields.
So there are also factors here which are actually lowering the cost versus 5 years ago.
The 3970X doesn’t have an iGPU advantage versus the Intel HEDT chip but it has a bigger gain in the chiplet department as the Intel chip is monolithic and big with it, so the yield advantage is greater than with the desktop chips which is smaller in Intel’s case so has less of a yield issue.
Does a 3950X cost so much to make that a $1,000 price premium is warranted for the silicon size?
I don’t think so for either Desktop of HEDT but I blame Intel for the current high price of CPUs.
Firstly, because in mid 2016 they pushed HEDT up to $1,750 from $1,000 which set the precedent.
Secondly, they haven’t been able to get past 14nm so they can’t compete in terms of transistors per chip, hence the lower core counts.
Without competition AMD have been able to extend the top price point and especially for desktop.
Without these two things from Intel we may well be seeing proper competition with 16C for $400-450 and 8C at $200; for current generation.
The irony is that Intel have created a situation that allows AMD to push the envelope pricing wise which must mean their margins are amazing.
The downside is that current prices are roughly double what they were 5 years ago for the amount of silicon you get.
So as I said in the initial post, the danger is that this becomes normal as with GPUs.
So we need Intel to keep AMD honest and AMD to keep Nvidia honest.

Maybe some of you were confused because you weren’t around when chip performance per $ would increase regularly without the actual prices doubling.

But prices have come down, top, middle and bottom. All lower than we have ever had with performance the likes we have never seen.

The CPU market has never been stronger even with AMD competing against its own products.

AMD aren’t Nvidia and don’t need to squeeze small slices of a single market. AMD are a flourishing company and reason for that is it’s continued innovation and product improvement. Nvidia and AMD are at different ends of the spectrum.

 

[smilingcrow]

ok let me put it another way for you.
the 4790k was never actually high end, it's just a binned mid range CPU. Amazing right? I know - the actual high end was the the 6 and 8 core CPUs that intel refused to let desktop users have (not talking about xeons level core counts) - so the 3950x at $750 that's actually cheap

You are still completely ignoring More's Law and just digging yourself a bigger whole.
So if the 4790K @22nm was 'meant to be' 8C for $350 in your universe, that would make the current top chips twice more expensive per transistor than they already are versus 5 years ago.
You are making my point for me as based on that we could have had 16C @14nm for ~$350.

The fact is, if you look at the price per transistor, the price decrease has slowed a lot.
I have no issue with the performance it's just the price has not kept in sync with the increase in transistor density.
This is the issue and has nothing to do with core counts which what might be blinding some of you.

 

[smilingcrow]

But prices have come down, top, middle and bottom. All lower than we have ever had with performance the likes we have never seen.

I proved that to be wrong in the first post:

"My point is that 5 years ago in January 2015 at the top end we had:
i7-4790K 4C 22nm $350
I7-5960X 8C 22nm $999

Now we have:
RYZEN 9 3950X 16C 7nm $750
RYZEN THREADRIPPER 3970X 32C 7nm $1,999
I’m ignoring the 64C chip as it’s in another class and doesn’t change the argument I am making."

Prices have at least doubled in 5 years.
I never mentioned value or performance, I'm just saying that people are paying much more per transistor than expected based on historical trends.

 

[jigger]

I proved that to be wrong in the first post:

"My point is that 5 years ago in January 2015 at the top end we had:
i7-4790K 4C 22nm $350
I7-5960X 8C 22nm $999

Now we have:
RYZEN 9 3950X 16C 7nm $750
RYZEN THREADRIPPER 3970X 32C 7nm $1,999
I’m ignoring the 64C chip as it’s in another class and doesn’t change the argument I am making."

Prices have at least doubled in 5 years.
I never mentioned value or performance, I'm just saying that people are paying much more per transistor than expected based on historical trends.

No buddy you proved your own point wrong. Just think about what you’re saying. An octo core cost £1000 now a much better octo core costs £280. A quad core i7 cost £380 now a quad core cost £50~ Prices have dropped massively.

 

[Grim5]

but the 4790k is a mid range chip in disguise, it's equivalent now is the 3700x which is $320. So the prices have come down.

Its the same thing with monitors if you want to look at absolute prices

few years ago top of the range was a 23 inch 1080p 75hz screen. Now it's a 35 inch 3440x1440 144hz with HDR10 and FALD. And you are complaining because they arent the same price.

Anyway I've had enough of this, goodbye

 

[Freddie1980]

According to what source? Because I'm pretty sure that's utter, utter claptrap. PS4 and Xbox 1 are on TSMC's 28nm process, so that has zero impact on their contemporary 7nm offerings. By the time the PS5 and Xbox Series X roll around on 7nm, AMD will be on 7nm EUV for Zen 3, so again has zero impact on their contemporary offerings.


No, it's because AMD haven't had a compelling product for OEMs to consider breaking ties with Intel (and the massive discount no doubt they offer). In fact, it is because INTEL can't guarantee the quantities of CPUs the OEMs require is why OEMs are now looking to AMD and their superior products.


And you only need to look at CPU pricing to throw your sweeping statement into the abyss of total dismissal.

You're talking ****, son, give it up.

7nm+ won't free up new manufacturing capacity as it uses the same tech with a few high tech modifications.

AnandTech: To go beyond that, AMD has already spoken about how its Zen 3 products will be built on TSMC’s N7+. Does that help alleviate the situation, given how parts of your product portfolio will transition to a slightly different process?

A: It’s fair to say that all the variants of TSMC’s 7nm share a lot of technology between them, whether that’s N7, N7P, or N7+.

When I was talking about console's I was referring to the new PS5 and Xbox not the last gen products.

It's not all about having a superior product for large scale PC makers its about client delivery. Intel has a reputation and proven track record of consistent delivery which is critical as OEMs can't afford to have disruptions and hold ups in the delivery chain. Sure Intel can't make enough chips to satisfy demand but AMD can't just simply waltz in and take over all that business because as I said TSMC 7nm capacity currently yields around 1.5 m wafers total of which AMD has around 350k and Intel produces twice that.

 

[Freddie1980]

According to what source? Because I'm pretty sure that's utter, utter claptrap. PS4 and Xbox 1 are on TSMC's 28nm process, so that has zero impact on their contemporary 7nm offerings. By the time the PS5 and Xbox Series X roll around on 7nm, AMD will be on 7nm EUV for Zen 3, so again has zero impact on their contemporary offerings.

Ok PS4 and Xbox sell around 25/26 million units a year so let's assume the new consoles will sell in similar amounts. We also know from leaked data posted on github that Xbox series X uses a monolithic chip that's around 420mm square, PS5 is likely to be monolithic as well and leaked specs suggests the PS5 chip is a bit smaller around 340mm square. We also know from TSMC defects on 7nm is only 0.06 per wafer.

Put all that together and AMD will need about 9500 wafers to produce 1.4m PS5's per month and about 6000 wafers for XBSX for about 900k chips for Microsofts console add that up that's just over 15000 wafers each month from there allowance of 30,000. If XBSX becomes the dominant console that will require even more wafers due to the size of the chip.

This is why I say AMD are a console company first and a PC company second.

 

[Diddums]

The two things aren't mutually exclusive you know!
Clearly Intel have major issues but for now their profits and projected next quarter profits are fine.
They are gonna seemingly have a lot of pain over the next year or two at least, but time will tell just how much they lose to AMD outside of the DIY crowd.

Those octa-core laptop chips sound compelling even if they might be overkill for many.
It's a good sales pitch for sure. If I'm near a PC World once they hit retail properly I'd be tempted to pop in and see how they pitch them.

Pc world? You'll have to wait until one of them stops eating the crayons long enough to initiate that staring contest they do like a scared dog from the other side of the shop hoping you'll go away. Only then once they realise you might actually be there because you want some information and not because you got lost 53 years ago and just randomly surfaced in their store with no idea what's going on, who you are or where the hell Peggy Carter is. At this point they might ask if they can help you and will start off with something along the lines of "yes is computer, has many gigabytes, you want homecare and insurance with computer? What's your favourite colour?".

It's hard to put in to words quite how completely useless and inept they are.

 

[Grim5]

Ok PS4 and Xbox sell around 25/26 million units a year so let's assume the new consoles will sell in similar amounts. We also know from leaked data posted on github that Xbox series X uses a monolithic chip that's around 420mm square, PS5 is likely to be monolithic as well and leaked specs suggests the PS5 chip is a bit smaller around 340mm square. We also know from TSMC defects on 7nm is only 0.06 per wafer.

Put all that together and AMD will need about 9500 wafers to produce 1.4m PS5's per month and about 6000 wafers for XBSX for about 900k chips for Microsofts console add that up that's just over 15000 wafers each month from there allowance of 30,000. If XBSX becomes the dominant console that will require even more wafers due to the size of the chip.

This is why I say AMD are a console company first and a PC company second.

If you go over to AMD.com - it's just gaming posters and advertisements everywhere. AMD's current business model is heavily reliant on gaming.

 

[jigger]

Ok PS4 and Xbox sell around 25/26 million units a year so let's assume the new consoles will sell in similar amounts. We also know from leaked data posted on github that Xbox series X uses a monolithic chip that's around 420mm square, PS5 is likely to be monolithic as well and leaked specs suggests the PS5 chip is a bit smaller around 340mm square. We also know from TSMC defects on 7nm is only 0.06 per wafer.

Put all that together and AMD will need about 9500 wafers to produce 1.4m PS5's per month and about 6000 wafers for XBSX for about 900k chips for Microsofts console add that up that's just over 15000 wafers each month from there allowance of 30,000. If XBSX becomes the dominant console that will require even more wafers due to the size of the chip.

This is why I say AMD are a console company first and a PC company second.

TSMC will be at 140k 7nm wafers per month in the last half of the year so I think AMD will enough production at TSMC.

 

[smilingcrow]

but the 4790k is a mid range chip in disguise, it's equivalent now is the 3700x which is $320. So the prices have come down.

You still aren't getting it - I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT PERFORMANCE.
I am purely discussing the price of the top tier SKUs for Desktop/HEDT and how these have increased dramatically and how this relates to Moore's Law and the price of transistors.

 

[smilingcrow]

No buddy you proved your own point wrong. Just think about what you’re saying. An octo core cost £1000 now a much better octo core costs £280. A quad core i7 cost £380 now a quad core cost £50~ Prices have dropped massively.

Which has absolutely nothing at all to do with the simple point I made.
Are you all unable to grasp such a simple concept? A bit scary really!

 

[BigEars]

My point is that 5 years ago in January 2015 at the top end we had:
i7-4790K 4C 22nm $350
I7-5960X 8C 22nm $999

What about the i7-4940MX quad core mobile that was priced near $1100 as well as the previous i7-4930MX. Prices are whatever hopefully makes the most profit overall, supply and demand.

 

[TNA]

Tbf he sounds just like 4k

Pretty sure it is him actually

 

[LePhuronn]

So while I've been asleep, let me recap...

smilingcrow: $750 is a bigger number than $350 so WAH WAH WAH AMD are ripping us off, correct? 4 times the cores for LESS THAN DOUBLE the price (inflation-adjusted). Also, the 3600 is 6 cores and costs $200 AND has a stock cooler that isn't made of ****. So shut the **** up with your utter, utter tosh.

Freddie1980: TSMC's 7nm EUV doesn't use the same machines as 7nm vanilla so console production won't impact Zen 3 production. It is literally that simple. Also, you can bleat on about AMD being a console company all you want, it doesn't make it even remotely true. Unless of course you consider Apple a mobile phone company because that's the thing they make the most...at least your flawed logic would be consistent.