Rumor: Intel may be inserting another tock in the Skylake-Cannonlake cycle with "Kaby Lake" and dela - Polidicks

[url]http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/anton-shilov/intels-kaby-lake-to-replace-skylake-next-year/[/url] [quote=KitGuru]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. Intel’s “Kaby Lake” processors will feature two or four cores, a new generation integrated graphics engine, a dual-channel memory controller and up to 256MB of on-package cache to speed up graphics workloads. The new chips will address various segments of the market, including mobile and desktop clients, reports BenchLife. The chips will feature thermal design power starting at 4.5W and up to 91W. Not a lot of information is known about “Kaby Lake” processors. The new chips will be made using 14nm process technology, but it is unclear whether the new central processing units will feature a new micro-architecture. It is also unknown whether the new chips will support AVX-512 instructions.[/quote]

Can someone tell how they will be better performance wise? Struggling here a bit.

Translation: Intel is still without serious competition, holds back release of the latest stuff and instead pads with release of inferior variant to sell more for less effort.

It would appear progress stagnates without competition. But who could challenge such a giant?

[QUOTE=Disgruntled;48039313]It would appear progress stagnates without competition. But who could challenge such a giant?[/QUOTE] NVIDIA

We need to summon Motorola

[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;48039317]NVIDIA[/QUOTE] I think there's some stuff with the x86-64 license that could prevent this. Nvidia is also (by revenue) about 10 times smaller than Intel, and their profits are about 20 times smaller. If anyone could challenge Intel I would put my money on Samsung.

[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;48039317]NVIDIA[/QUOTE] NVIDIA is more experienced in the GPU side. I'd like to see Samsung take on Intel. They have the industry to go against them on mass scale and research.

The simple rub is tick tock is no longer needed, and is furthermore pretty much untenable as the process shrinks. 10mm tick tock probably isn't going to happen, and there's pretty much no need since AMD seems to be hell-bent on shooting itself in the face in the CPU venue, and they're pretty much blowing their chance to kick nVidia in the balls on the GPU side with anemic HBM offerings that are either just competitive or slightly better (+7-14% throughput for 75-50 of the price sounds amazing until you figure not many people are going to be adopting until late fall-winter, by which time nVidia can simply shift price points to directly compete, and for whatever idiotic reason clipped their flagship and high end to 4 gigs, just when 4K/5K monitors are becoming consumer affordable) This is also a non-pro chip as it only comes in 2 and four core variants, so it's most likely destined for pack-ins and mobile SKUs. [quote] samsung [/quote] lol, no. No one on planet earth has the capital to take intel on their hometurf through attrition, so unless someone invents some kind of ultra super chip, nothing like that is remotely going to happen. Intel literally has the market by the balls, from design to end product, they literal [b]own[/b] the entire channel of taking a product to market.

Amd perhaps? You know I think zilog is still around.

Pretty much only chances for Intel to lose it's PC CPU quasi-monopoly would be an intervention from government/law with intent to break up Intel's monopoly (extremely unlikely), or a new architecture arising and overtaking x86_64 (which could be pretty great) and Intel sleeping in on it, but that's something one can't really predict and doesn't seem exactly likely any time soon either.

I doubt it's the lack of competition from amd, they've just got 14nm down and are reaching the limits of silicon, it took a lot of time for 14nm yields to be profitable. Things are going to slow down from here until a new material is found. Architectural improvements however can still be made in the meantime.

I would love to use intel's integrated gpu cores in parallel to ati gpu cores all under opencl.

[QUOTE=27X;48039451]lol, no. No one on planet earth has the capital to take intel on their hometurf through attrition, so unless someone invents some kind of ultra super chip, nothing like that is remotely going to happen. Intel literally has the market by the balls, from design to end product, they literal [b]own[/b] the entire channel of taking a product to market.[/QUOTE] ...What? Sure Samsung will need to license a lot of the stuff AMD got grandfathered (?) in, but Samsung has lots of experience with mobile chips (they're even doing 14nm on their own process), and they could probably - if they really wanted to - get into the market. I don't think they will, but out of the companies that potentially [I]could[/I], Samsung should be on that list. Hell, Samsung could probably buy "just" AMD and multiply the funding by a lot to get in the game.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;48039299]Translation: Intel is still without serious competition, holds back release of the latest stuff and instead pads with release of inferior variant to sell more for less effort.[/QUOTE] I don't think you understand the semiconductor industry at all. [editline]24th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48039526]...What? Sure Samsung will need to license a lot of the stuff AMD got grandfathered (?) in, but Samsung has lots of experience with mobile chips (they're even doing 14nm on their own process), and they could probably - if they really wanted to - get into the market. I don't think they will, but out of the companies that potentially [I]could[/I], Samsung should be on that list. Hell, Samsung could probably buy "just" AMD and multiply the funding by a lot to get in the game.[/QUOTE] Samsung is yet to design their own CPU or GPU architecture. There's nobody to buy IP from in the x86 space. [editline]24th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=27X;48039451]The simple rub is tick tock is no longer needed, and is furthermore pretty much untenable as the process shrinks. [/QUOTE] This is correct.

[QUOTE=Kaabii;48039570] Samsung is yet to design their own CPU or GPU architecture. There's nobody to buy IP from in the x86 space.[/QUOTE] With IP, do you mean finished designs like the Cortex cores? Wouldn't AMD apply there if they bought the whole package (which would entail a big licensing mess afaik)? And while Samsung might not do their own core designs, there are obviously differences between the 810 and Samsung's designs, so they obviously know how to design the rest - or do the differences in performance basically come down to process node and the accordingly lower TDP? And what about Apple - I can't remember, are their designs custom or only semi-ly so?

[QUOTE=Disgruntled;48039313]It would appear progress stagnates without competition. But who could challenge such a giant?[/QUOTE] Elon Musk.

[QUOTE=Bradyns;48039884]Elon Musk.[/QUOTE] The future is here: Electric processors!

I don't think even Elon Musk has enough money to take on Intel.

[QUOTE=Del91;48039933]I don't think even Elon Musk has enough money to take on Intel.[/QUOTE] Unless he sold off both SpaceX and Tesla.

[QUOTE=Kaabii;48039570]I don't think you understand the semiconductor industry at all. [/QUOTE] Feel free to point out why do you think I am wrong instead of offering your perfectly irrelevant opinion without explaining anything?

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48039853]With IP, do you mean finished designs like the Cortex cores? Wouldn't AMD apply there if they bought the whole package (which would entail a big licensing mess afaik)? And while Samsung might not do their own core designs, there are obviously differences between the 810 and Samsung's designs, so they obviously know how to design the rest - or do the differences in performance basically come down to process node and the accordingly lower TDP? And what about Apple - I can't remember, are their designs custom or only semi-ly so?[/QUOTE] S810 has a really bad layout but Exynos is not amazing either. Samsung's advantage is mostly process. I don't think the x86 license transfers over to a buyer so that'll basically be a disaster. Apple cores are completely custom designed.

[QUOTE=Kaabii;48044554]S810 has a really bad layout but Exynos is not amazing either. Samsung's advantage is mostly process. I don't think the x86 license transfers over to a buyer so that'll basically be a disaster. Apple cores are completely custom designed.[/QUOTE] It's been confirmed at least AMD's license wouldn't carry over if they were to be bought, but iirc VIA still has an x86 license. Dunno about them.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;48040303]Feel free to point out why do you think I am wrong instead of offering your perfectly irrelevant opinion without explaining anything?[/QUOTE] Intel is the only company that has a 14nm process with good scaling. Samsung 14nm still uses 20nm interconnect. Basically, 14nm doesn't mean the same thing at different foundries. It's a huge engineering task to continue "Moore's Law" which is basically nonsense at this point because these delays and imperfect dimensional scaling mean we are not seeing a doubling of transistors per unit area every 24 months. Intel has no incentive to delay 10nm for fun, because 14nm is an extremely expensive process compared to 22nm. Any delays are because this is a hugely difficult feat of engineering, not because Intel is lazy and taking advantage of AMD's incompetence.

[QUOTE=Fetret;48039926]The future is here: Electric processors![/QUOTE] In an ultimate twist of irony, Elon Musk proudly presents the world's first gasoline-powered CPU. "I get 500 trillion frames per gallon with this bad-boy!"

IBM

[QUOTE=KnightVista;48044649]IBM[/QUOTE] Imagine how much chess we could play.

Apple's mobile processors are great. It would be cool if they entered the desktop CPU market. But if they did, i'm sure it would be mac-exclusive.

I dunno if that'd ever happen though, since Macs aren't exactly designed to be as open-source and moddable as most other personal computers.

[QUOTE=ironman17;48045207]I dunno if that'd ever happen though, since Macs aren't exactly designed to be as open-source and moddable as most other personal computers.[/QUOTE] Apple is slowly becoming more open source with their work. Swift just went open-source, HealthKit is open source, Webkit is open source, and the Darwin kernel is open source.