• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Moore's Law officially kaput: 10nm postponed, only refresh for 2016

Orangey

Orangey

Orangey

Soldato
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Posts
8,338
http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/anton-shilov/intels-kaby-lake-to-replace-skylake-next-year/

Intel Corp. has changed its roadmap once again and delayed its code-named “Cannonlake” processors to an unknown date. Next year the company will introduce “Kaby Lake” processors made using 14nm FinFET process technology.
Click to expand...

While the reasons why Intel decided to delay or even cancel “Cannonlake” processors are unknown, it is highly likely that motive behind the change of plans is the postponement of Intel’s 10nm fabrication process.
Click to expand...

I do want to say I told you so, because it makes me look smart! :cool:

:p :D
 
Moores Law unofficially ended in 2012.

Why does IBM keep announcing massive breakthroughs in transistors such as the recent +30% faster transistor tech based on graphite yet Intel and AMD never ever make use of a single one of these "breakthroughs"? It makes no sense.
 
PanMaster said:
Moores Law unofficially ended in 2012.

Why does IBM keep announcing massive breakthroughs in transistors such as the recent +30% faster transistor tech based on graphite yet Intel and AMD never ever make use of a single one of these "breakthroughs"? It makes no sense.
Click to expand...

And who's providing the pressure to make drastically faster cpus?

Intel has the money to chase new avenues but why should it make such a large effort.
 
On the bright side, there's little reason to wait for new CPU releases so if you want to buy now you won't have pangs of regret later because you didn't wait a few months.
 
Poneros said:
On the bright side, there's little reason to wait for new CPU releases so if you want to buy now you won't have pangs of regret later because you didn't wait a few months.
Click to expand...

No, you'll just have the regret of spending hundreds more pounds on an X99 setup and seeing little to no benefit in gaming unless DX12 really does make good use of more than 4 cores.
 
It'll catch up eventually, be it in 10, 200 or even 3000 years time.

There were hand crank computers from ancient Greece and then millennia of nothing. Just because it's faded in the last few years, computational power hasn't come to a standstill. It'll just transfer over to a new medium.
 
There was a more important 'law' described by another, doubt it was Moore also.

It stated the same thing, but included revenue/profit into it, such that you could make a steady profit from the chips by the lowering of costs in creating them (higher yields).

However, we've reached an impasse, in that it costs many many billions of capitol for a rather small leap, Intel/TMSC/Samsung, whoever, can't justify it.
 
Guess Intel repeated with 10nm yield had same issue with 14nm yield that pushed back Broadwell CPUs.

We have to wait and see what Intel say about 10nm in August.
 
StriderX said:
There was a more important 'law' described by another, doubt it was Moore also.

It stated the same thing, but included revenue/profit into it, such that you could make a steady profit from the chips by the lowering of costs in creating them (higher yields).

However, we've reached an impasse, in that it costs many many billions of capitol for a rather small leap, Intel/TMSC/Samsung, whoever, can't justify it.
Click to expand...

Recently watched a video where Jerry Sanders (AMD) was ribbing Moore about that ("eventually we will make everything for nothing") so it may have been an addendum he made to his own observation.
 
I'd think they will keep going until the transistors can't go any smaller. Moores law is just a prediction not forgetting something like a copper atom is 0.28nm (silicon atom is 0.1nm) so it's going to keep getting harder and harder for them to double transistor count.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom