On: Intel’s Manufacturing Roadmap from 2019 to 2029

[SimbaOnSteroids]

Not if they meant they missed their 2005 roadmap for 2015.

[onlyrealcuzzo → SimbaOnSteroids]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Intel unveiled their infamous "Tick-Tock Model" around 2007 [1]. It went according to plan for all of four years, and then it COMPLETELY fell apart. If anything, I'm willing to bet they KNEW they could hit the first few iterations. I'm guessing for hardware, you've probably got a really good idea if you're going to be able to even manufacture something in two years, let alone mass-distribute, produce, and sell it at the price point you want. I'm also pretty certain they KNEW they wouldn't hit the rest of the roadmap.

Honestly, I think it was purposefully misleading investors. I heard from dozens of engineers at the company around 2008 that there was NO WAY they would have 10nm chips around 2012 -- what the roadmap was more or less promising. And surprise, we didn't get them until 2018. Now they're promising 1.5nm in a similar time frame. I'm skeptical.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick%E2%80%93tock_model

[kllrnohj → onlyrealcuzzo]

> I heard from dozens of engineers at the company around 2008 that there was NO WAY they would have 10nm chips around 2012 -- what the roadmap was more or less promising.

Where did they promise 10nm in 2012? This presentation from 2011 shows 10nm in 2017: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/intel-roadmap-from-jun... and in 2011 tick-tock was still going strong.

I think you messed up your math. Tick/tock was a process shrink every 2-3 years. Using the more aggressive 2 year cadence:

    45 nm – 2007
    32 nm – 2009
    22 nm – 2011
    14 nm – 2013
    10 nm – 2015

Using a more conservative 3 year cadence:

    45 nm – 2007
    32 nm – 2010
    22 nm – 2013
    14 nm – 2016
    10 nm – 2019

And if we look at what actually happened:

    65 nm – 2005
    45 nm – 2007
    32 nm – 2010
    22 nm – 2012
    14 nm – 2014
    10 nm – 2018/2019

(Cannon Lake-U 10nm technically shipped in 2018, but I don't think anyone really considers it volume-enough to count?)

They pretty much nailed tick/tock flawlessly up until 10nm, 10 years out from when tick/tock was first announced. Expecting perfect 10 year predictions is some insane expectations for any company/person. There's no way in hell tick/tock's 2007 unveil could possibly be considered "misleading investors."

[ksec → kllrnohj]

>Where did they promise 10nm in 2012? This presentation from 2011 shows 10nm in 2017:

Your link shows 7nm in 2017, 10nm was for 2015.

>Tick/tock was a process shrink every 2-3 years. Using the more aggressive 2 year cadence:

You are confusing "Tick Tock" with "Process, Architecture, Optimization". Tick Tock is strictly 2 years cadence.

So yes 10nm missed by a large margin.

> 10 nm – 2018/2019

Intel has been making 10nm chip irrespective of yield, the current batch were months of stock piling chip before the rush to roll out in Xmas. In reality they barely got it out of the gate in 2019. And if you count Cannon-Lake as 2018, you might as well count TSMC 5nm in 2019.

>There's no way in hell tick/tock's 2007 unveil could possibly be considered "misleading investors."

There were not misleading in 2007, the executed their plan flawlessly, Intel had decent people back then. Pat Gelsinger left in 2009. It was still doing great up to 2012, Otellini retired, BK became CEO in 2013, still promising Tick Tock. That is the point where misleading investor began.

And I forgot to mention during All investor meetings Intel continue to reiterate 10nm is on track all the way until BK was gone. If that is not "misleading investors" I am not sure what is.

[my123 → kllrnohj]

Flawlessly?

Intel 14nm's beginnings were far from flawless, even if it's nowhere near Intel 10nm's issues.

[wtallis → onlyrealcuzzo]

That's a little harsh on the history of the Tick-Tock roadmap. It didn't have its first real hiccup until 2014 with Haswell Refresh v Broadwell, and then Skylake was delivered on time a year later. It was Intel's complete failure to follow-up Skylake with a process shrink "Tick" that was—and still is—Intel's big problem. So it really worked out alright for Intel for about 8 years before hitting a wall.

[ethbro → onlyrealcuzzo]

Big lies seem self-reinforcing, particularly in public companies.

Or to put it another way, nobody is going to charge you with a crime for staying with the herd. That's a passive choice.

But when there's a dissenting voice, suddenly you have to make an active decision to ignore them. And that's when the lawsuits start producing emails about who knew what when.

End result: People intentionally (if they know better) or unintentionally (if people smarter than them are all saying the same thing) agree with the party line, even in the face of demonstrable facts otherwise.

[kllrnohj → SimbaOnSteroids]

But if they did mean that then they're mistaken. Intel just about nailed the 10-year prediction from 2005 to 2015, hitting a shrink every 2-3 years:

    65 nm – 2005
    45 nm – 2007
    32 nm – 2010
    22 nm – 2012
    14 nm – 2014