TR Forums

https://www.semiaccurate.com/2018/05/29 ... -pr-stunt/

I don't know if any of this is true. But some of his claims are interesting:

- It's a 2+1 (cores + GPU) config that's being sold as a 2+0 (no GPU) (Covered in TR's story)
- The GPU is disabled because Intel "can't get it to work"
- It only hits a turbo of 3.2GHz for its 15W TDP (Kaby Lake parts could hit 3.5 or better)
- You won't be able to buy the Lenovo notebook
- some napkin math that insinuates that it took 6 months to make what SA calls "15% of one day's production"

If (and I'm sure it's a big "if") this is even only semi-accurate it seems kind of bad for Intel. I think we were all kind of doubting this thing when TR wrote about it, and I see no reason to change that stance.

Intel is doomed DOOMED I SAY!

Charlie is always right, which is why Intel actually went out of business when its 14nm process completely failed: https://semiaccurate.com/2014/02/19/sky ... broadwell/

So clearly Charlie is right this time because since Intel has already gone bankrupt, they clearly can't get 10nm products on the market.

Thanks for your valuable contribution to this thread.

derFunkenstein wrote:

Thanks for your valuable contribution to this thread.

YOU'RE WELCOME!

NOW LET'S GET BACK TO TALKING ABOUT HOW GPUs DON'T EXIST ANYMORE:

05-11-2010, 05:15 PM

I would ask the question in a more general sense. Will GPUs exist in 5 years. The answer there would be no.

The low end dies this year, or at least starts to do a PeeWee Herman at the end of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the movie, not the show). There goes the volume. 2012 sees the same happening for the high end. The middle isn't enough to sustain NV.

They have 2 years to make compute and widgets profitable. Good luck there guys.

-Charlie

http://www.semiaccurate.com/forums/show ... stcount=10 [he has since memory-holed that post incidentally, but I won't ever let it die]

Well, don't forget the site's name is semi-accurate. It's fun to speculate wildly, and I presented this link as nothing more than that.

I'm guessing the 10nm situation is somewhere in between Charlie's exaggerations and "regular" production. He's always facetious and ridiculous for no reason, but not always completely wrong. And clearly Intel is having very serious issues or we'd have legit products by now (read: a year ago).

It is getting a bit crazy though. Intel really, really, really blew up 10nm. There are people shipping 7nm products this year, and I think some have some EUV processes included too. Now, obviously this is mostly marketing BS and we're not talking about someone producing a 20 core Xeon or anything on 7nm, but Intel definitely blew it with 10nm.

As much as people are "happy" about some of the other foundries and companies pulling "ahead" it really is time for Intel to get back on track. It's going to hurt everyone if they can't get 10nm (and really, 10nm+) working well, and soon.

Well a 10nm 2+0 Lenovo lappy was released to the Chinese market and Intel normally starts off its next gen chips with something a little more spectacular than that so it's pretty obvious they are having issues with the process. To me it looks like they are just salvaging what they can from a rather poor 10nm Run #1 with those CPUs.

derFunkenstein wrote:

Well, don't forget the site's name is semi-accurate. It's fun to speculate wildly, and I presented this link as nothing more than that.

If it was truth in advertising it'd be named 'not-even-remotely-accurate' from what I've seen.

I've seen so much from that camp (and The Register and whatever) that was so full of crap I stopped paying attention.

I guess at the very least Intels recent execution or lack thereof is interesting.

MileageMayVary wrote:

Well a 10nm 2+0 Lenovo lappy was released to the Chinese market and Intel normally starts off its next gen chips with something a little more spectacular than that so it's pretty obvious they are having issues with the process. To me it looks like they are just salvaging what they can from a rather poor 10nm Run #1 with those CPUs.

That'll be the Lenono referenced in the OP, at a guess.

MileageMayVary wrote:

Well a 10nm 2+0 Lenovo lappy was released to the Chinese market and Intel normally starts off its next gen chips with something a little more spectacular than that so it's pretty obvious they are having issues with the process. To me it looks like they are just salvaging what they can from a rather poor 10nm Run #1 with those CPUs.

Actually for a while now Intel has been shoving the mobile chips out first on new generations. Of course they haven't really put out a 2+0 first in a long time, but it's not like they're outting the 8700K first every generation either.

I think Charlie nailed it.................

One big plus to come out of this-There's a sale of 100,000 low end GPU's,that otherwise probably would not have happened......
AMD and NV-please say "Thank you Intel."

Looking forward to see what they can bring out in June to bury all this bad news..............................

Oh, c'mon... it's SA. It's a rumor site, and even Charlie knows it or he would not have chosen that name. He's entertaining, but he's wrong about as often as he's right. Take it with a giant water softener salt block.

I don't dispute that 10nm is hard, or that Intel has incentives to put lipstick on the pig. But the levels of conspiracy theory at work here feel like... something that would get this thread banished to R&P if I went into more detail.

just brew it! wrote:

Oh, c'mon... it's SA. It's a rumor site, and even Charlie knows it or he would not have chosen that name. He's entertaining, but he's wrong about as often as he's right. Take it with a giant water softener salt block.

I don't dispute that 10nm is hard, or that Intel has incentives to put lipstick on the pig. But the levels of conspiracy theory at work here feel like... something that would get this thread banished to R&P if I went into more detail.

"10nm is hard" for Intel, is a massive understatement.
And the fact that someone probably screwed-up,perhaps more than once,and is being hidden from investors-is not hard to believe.........................

derFunkenstein wrote:

Well, don't forget the site's name is semi-accurate..

-keep it IN-tere-sante.