Intel announces cancellation of 20A process node for Arrow Lake, goes with external nodes instead, likely TSMC [Updated]
Posted by ET3D@reddit | hardware | View on Reddit | 117 comments
jayjr1105@reddit
Out of the loop, after years of struggling with their own foundry, why does everyone think they will catch up with TSMC with 18A in one fell swoop?
yabn5@reddit
First node to implement BSPD and GAA.
gnocchicotti@reddit
If it arrives on time, the cost is competitive, and the yields are good. Not things that Intel has traditionally delivered on in the last decade. But we'll see.
Strazdas1@reddit
Yields were always good for Intel traditionally, Its the other two things that rarely are.
gnocchicotti@reddit
yeah just not in the last decade
letsmodpcs@reddit
Yields were published yesterday
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/intel-says-defect-density-at-18a-is-healthy-potential-clients-are-lining-up
LeotardoDeCrapio@reddit
Defect Density and Yield are 2 different metrics BTW.
letsmodpcs@reddit
Thx. I think I can get that but could you say a bit more about it?
LeotardoDeCrapio@reddit
Defect Density can affect yield, but it is not a straightforward correlation.
The Defect Density is a metric related more to the quality levels of the fabrication process all else being equal. For example, the quality of the clean room (e.g. dust particles per volume), the performance of the rest of the elements of the production line like optics, motors, metal layering, etching, etc.
Defect Density is basically a baseline, which the manufacturer can use to sort of give a confidence level for their process. Specific thresholds signify different levels of confidence in the process itself.
Yield is a wholistic metric.
The most simplistic way is to define Yield is as how many dies per specific wafer on a specific fabrication run are "usable/functional." And create complex distribution models accordingly.
Those models/data are EXTREMELY confidential BTW. Since there are a lot of factors that affect them, some are straight up influenced by the fab itself, those fore mentioned Defect Densities. But a lot of it has to do with the design itself, the binning, etc. This is, things that are pretty proprietary and influenced by the designer (not just the manufacturer)
So even though 2 different vendors using the same fab may have similar baseline defect rates from the fab itself. Those 2 different vendors will experience significantly different overall yield distributions. And even for the same design, different revisions of the same design will have different yields.
Hope that makes sense.
letsmodpcs@reddit
Yeah this is so great, thank you.
nanonan@reddit
Right, which is showing they still have plenty of work to do to get competitive with TSMC.
Worldly_Apple1920@reddit
Also if they have good PDKs in their EDA tools, because who wants to abandon TSMC to adopt Intel's cumbersome design packages
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
Samsung SF3 has implemented GAA already, and you can already buy products with it (Galaxy Watch).
nanonan@reddit
Pure hopium. Instead of zero clients, they have dozens of potential clients! Instead of delays into next year, they are progressing smoothly and are on track to deliver early next year! 20A wasn't a failure, they totally weren't seeking external customers for it and totally meant to have absolutely nothing produced by their newest process! It's remarkable how everything Intel marketing says is gospel and every setback or delay is in fact a sign of how good things are going to be.
Vb_33@reddit
20A definitely didn't turn out like Intel originally envisioned. While Intel has missed a lot let's hope they hit where it matters most (18A).
DaBIGmeow888@reddit
It's not possible.
Geddagod@reddit
TSMC themselves said they expect 18A to be around N3P (IIRC it was about performance? though it maybe was just the overall node PPA). Maybe not exactly taking back the lead, but being dramatically more competitive than before, and maybe 1-1/2 a node behind (considering N2 doesn't seem like a massive leap over N3 either).
LeotardoDeCrapio@reddit
Well, they're betting the company on 18A apparently. So they will be likely moving all the 20A resources over there.
Strazdas1@reddit
A20 and A18 use the same machines so any A20 use reduces A18 availability.
Resident_Buddy_8978@reddit
100% Intel's going full TSMC. At this point they're just gaslighting investors.
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit
Every single Xeon, one of their largest revenue segments is on Intel 3.
51ngular1ty@reddit
Apparently Intel posted it's 18A numbers and the defects are below industry expectations and expected to improve. Though Broadcom doesn't appear impressed . Whether or not intels numbers are trustworthy is beyond me though.
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit
According to?
Intel’s claims for Intel 3 were accurate. I see little reason to doubt their claims for 18A.
Ghostsonplanets@reddit
Panther Lake next year is full Intel 18A.
LeotardoDeCrapio@reddit
LOL. gaslighting doesn't mean what you want it to mean ;-)
ElSzymono@reddit
What? All new server CPUs are on Intel 3.
Real-Human-1985@reddit
yea.
DaBIGmeow888@reddit
They are moving into a foundry model to beat TSMC .....by outsourcing advanced nodes to TSMC.
It's very gaslighting.
LeotardoDeCrapio@reddit
Gaslighting about what gaslighting means. Brilliant!
steinfg@reddit
2 nodes in 4 years it is then. (i4, i18A)
ThePandaRider@reddit
4 nodes if you're counting 18A. Intel 7, Intel 4, Intel 3, and Intel 18A. But Intel 4 and Intel 20A were always meant to be half nodes, basically incomplete versions of Intel 3 and Intel 18A. Granite Rapids was moved off of Intel 4 onto Intel 3 and it sounds like Meteor lake will have a refresh that uses Intel 3 instead of Intel 4. 20A was supposed to be used in Arrow Lake but only for a few low end SKUs, nothing important. 18A was originally supposed to come in 2025 but the roadmap has been pushed up to end of 2024. it's possible they are going to try to push up Panther Lake instead of trying to get Arrow Lake working on 20A.
Vb_33@reddit
But why? When Lunar and Arrow Lake both exist. Seems a little too late. I guess low end SKUs only?
ThePandaRider@reddit
It should be a good amount cheaper than anything on TSMC 3nm. It will likely be low end SKUs.
jaaval@reddit
You don't count intel3 a separate node?
steinfg@reddit
intel 4 node is only used for Meteor lake's 69mm² Core tile (cannon lake flashback), and intel 3 node is only used for giant Xeon 6th gen. Those two nodes can't even be properly compared, and it seems like intel 4 was a beta test for intel 3, just like 20A was a beta test for 18A.
jaaval@reddit
Of course they can be compared, intel4 is indeed mostly a development node for intel3. Basically intel3 high performance version is just optimized intel4 with minimal changes in transistor geometry. Intel3 introduces higher density version.
Exist50@reddit
I think that's de facto coming later. Nothing uses it until '25 or '26.
steinfg@reddit
By "properly compared" I don't mean transistor specs. I mean there's no "product line" overlap between the two right now. How would meteor lake perform if it was made on intel 3? We don't know.
Geddagod@reddit
Rumor is that "ARL-U" is just MTL on Intel 3.
jaaval@reddit
Ah, that's true. Though I believe gracemont core is implemented in both so we can make some estimates. Redwood cove too but the server version is probably different so that's not as direct.
It's also still possible they will launch for low end arrow lake mobile as meteor lake refresh in intel3.
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
Nodelet?
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit
The “nodelet” has a bigger performance jump than N3B from N5.
Ghostsonplanets@reddit
Surely you mean N4P. Because there's a huge gap between N3B and N5.
tset_oitar@reddit
12%. N3E is 18%
Ghostsonplanets@reddit
Just looked. TSMC claimed a 10 - 15% improvement in performance for N3B while N3E was 18%, yes. Didn't realize N3B was that small of a jump over N4P, sans the density increase.
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
Power improvements are bigger than performance improvements
Ghostsonplanets@reddit
Over N5, they are, yes. But, for someone coming from N4P, it's a fairly small energy-efficiency increase.
gnocchicotti@reddit
Nodette. Kinda like how leatherette is like leather but fake
jaaval@reddit
Little nodette?
cp5184@reddit
It's on the same equipment in the same fab, being just a tweak iirc... The same way the failed 2 is related to 18a. Right?
yeeeeman27@reddit
that's for the better tbh
so intel is swapping their supposedly 2nm to tsmc 3nm and it will probably be better.
just look at lunar lake, seems like a fantastic chip
Stennan@reddit
This is really bad... I don't care much for whatever real-world downscaling 20A actually is (I doubt there is any part of the CPU that is 0.2nm), but Intel backing out of foundry tech they demonstrated 1 year ago will sting. The manufacturing lines were probably ordered and assembled if they had planned for 20A production in 2024...
Sani_48@reddit
The article states that they moved their engineering resources to 18A. Because ramping up a node costs a lot of money.
They saw gthat 18A was good enough to completely switch over.
we will see if that was a bad move.
Real-Human-1985@reddit
They're just saying that's the reason when really 20A was just too bad and they are hoping and praying for 18A. It's kicking the can down the road, and running out of road.
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
How can 20A be flop and 18A be incredible? Isn't that a contradiction? 18A is a derivative of 20A.
nanonan@reddit
Hoping and promising 18A will be incredible is different from 18A actually being incredible.
Real-Human-1985@reddit
Not necessarily
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit
Just like Intel 3 is a derivative of Intel 4 and yet thrashes it in performance, leakage etc.,
Basically 20A was a node where Intel wanted to learn and debug all their new tech namely BPSD, RibbonFET. 18A is the actual proper node.
Kant-fan@reddit
Ramping up production and volume is what makes the node cheaper in the long term and worthwhile using but considering that they would only use it in a subset of desktop chips currently it would be a financial mistake. 18A on the other hand was always meant to be used for significantly more products including client and server as well as external customers.
steinfg@reddit
"20A was just too bad"
"Source?"
"I saw it in a dream"
nanonan@reddit
Or, you know, the cancellation of any and every product using it.
DaBIGmeow888@reddit
Pretty sure outsourcing to your biggest rival is an admission of self defeat. You are a foundry that wants to compete by outsourcing to another foundry. Not a good look
Old_Wallaby_7461@reddit
At the time that these TSMC wafers were booked, Intel was trying to get out of the foundry business entirely
DaBIGmeow888@reddit
Pat continued outsource though in 2021.
Old_Wallaby_7461@reddit
Yeah, for GPU, because otherwise they wouldn't be made at all.
When Pat showed up, Intel had:
No way around those problems except by spending a waterfall of money for half a decade. And no way to keep the design side going and bring in that waterfall of money unless they bought wafers from TSMC.
steinfg@reddit
Foundry and design are separate now. Intel's chip design team chooses between Intel foundry or TSMC foundry.
DaBIGmeow888@reddit
So why would Intel design pay more money to TSMC than preferential rates with IFS?
steinfg@reddit
Intel burned themselfes with 10nm (it arrived 5 years later than needed), so they switched to dual source model. Today, it turns out they're in a tough finantial spot, so to save money, they choose one source again. They calculated that capex needed to bring 20A to full tilt would be too big compared to the reward (the only product that I know uses 20A is lower-end arrow lake chips), so they shifted their efforts to 18A.
steinfg@reddit
It obviously costs more to make chips at TSMC, so Intel won't be able to bring Arrow lake into mainstream. It'll have lower volume of sales compared to meteor lake. Intel will most likely make continue Meteor lake on their own node and sell it in the lower-end mass market (1215U/1235U ain't so hot anymore)
Legal-Insurance-8291@reddit
No, it costs more to make chips at Intel. That's why everyone uses TSMC.
DaBIGmeow888@reddit
Then how the heck does Intel intend to win customers if it is more costly?
Legal-Insurance-8291@reddit
They were hoping people would be worried about supply chains after COVID, but everyone has stopped worrying about that stuff now.
DYMAXIONman@reddit
I mean, they already paid for that capacity years ago and part of the reason they did was to block AMD from using that capacity.
yUQHdn7DNWr9@reddit
I doubt they paid more than a small fraction as advance fee.
ET3D@reddit (OP)
I think that u/Real-Human-1985's "just too bad" is a simplification and can't be directly attributed, I think that it's still possible to read between the lines based on rumour and reality.
Rumour said that Intel will only use 20A for mid-range. The cancellation of 20A suggests that was true (otherwise it would have impacted Arrow Lake release). This strongly implies that TSMC's process is better than 20A.
Cancelling now also suggests that either the ramp up is behind (20A was supposed to be ready for production in H1 2024), the results aren't good enough, or both.
All this doesn't make it "just too bad", but it does suggest that it wasn't as great as some people thought it would be.
Real-Human-1985@reddit
It was too bad for their plans and that’s not too simple to get. If it met their needs they’d use it period.
Sani_48@reddit
ok, thx.
didnt know that.
DaBIGmeow888@reddit
So does outsourcing, the profit margins is squeezed by paying TSMC.
SoftBank, BroadCom, Qualcomm are not optimistic on 18A.
Sani_48@reddit
as i understood, they already booked the volume at tsmc.
so they kinda safed some money with stopping 20A.
but we will see.
Exist50@reddit
If this was planned because of existing TSMC contracts, they would have never announced 20A ARL.
Sani_48@reddit
well, the only reason i could think of is, that 18A (as said) was ready earlier than expected.
so instead of throwing money to ramp 20A they just did 18A.
And they propaply didnt think of that scenario we are in rigth now. That they need to focus on cash that hard.
Exist50@reddit
Nah, 20A was far enough behind that it couldn't make a competitive product. So just like they did with p1276, they delay until there's at node that at least works.
Sani_48@reddit
oh ok, didnt know that it was that far behind.
could you send a link?
Exist50@reddit
They haven't admitted so publicly, but well, I've been saying just this for months now, so take that as confirmation if you want. Or ignore it. Don't really care.
Sani_48@reddit
its okay.
was just curious if there is any data behind such claims.
nanonan@reddit
This cancellation is one data point.
DaBIGmeow888@reddit
You are a foundry, you can save a lot of money by just stopping all business and outsourcing to TSMC.
Sani_48@reddit
as i understood, they booked those volumes way back, when it wasnt ckear if their new nodes would even be there.
so why not use it, if already paid?
DaBIGmeow888@reddit
They promised 5 nodes in 4 years, they knew there will be advanced nodes beyond 20A, what are you talking about.
Old_Wallaby_7461@reddit
TSMC N3 was booked under Bob Swann in 2019. Wafers were paid for then, why not use them now?
Sani_48@reddit
just read all the articles.
And all the information together makes sense.
--
so now.
they knew yeah. they tried new things with 20A and enhanced them in 18A. they always knew 20A wasnt for a long production time. the plan was always 18A.
So the resulta for 18A were earlier and better than expected. So they moved all their resources to 18A.
They saved money, because they only have to ramp up one instead of two nodes.
DaBIGmeow888@reddit
Broadcom, SoftBank, and Qualcomm have all cast doubts on 18A maturity. I am not optimistic.
Sani_48@reddit
Yeah, we have to see.
It will be interesting if they have any customer who really wants 18A.
Sani_48@reddit
just read all the articles.
And all the information together makes sense.
--
so now.
they knew yeah. they tried new things with 20A and enhanced them in 18A. they always knew 20A wasnt for a long production time. the plan was always 18A.
So the resulta for 18A were earlier and better than expected. So they moved all their resources to 18A.
They saved money, because they only have to ramp up one instead of two nodes.
SERIVUBSEV@reddit
But 18A is still releasing on previous schedule? So what is the point of moving engineering resources when they could have both 20A in 2024 and 18A 2025 like they have told everyone in their roadmap?
This was not a move, just straight up cancellation of 20A node.
ThePandaRider@reddit
18A is being pulled up from 2025 to 2024 H2.
imaginary_num6er@reddit
Yeah sure. Panther Lake is 18A and that is not launching until til 2025
imaginary_num6er@reddit
18A can launch in December 2025 and Pat will meet his commitment
ExtremeFreedom@reddit
20a and 18a were going to use the same/similar equipment so this could mean higher capacity at launch, potentially better yields due to more eyes on the product, or more people working with "customers" to get chip designs on 18a.
yUQHdn7DNWr9@reddit
I doubt cancelling this node will entice potential external customers to sign up for the next.
QuantumObscure@reddit
20 Angstrom is 2nm not 0.2nm
picastchio@reddit
Not that it matters here but 20A is 2nm.
AggravatingChest7838@reddit
Seeing shit like this makes think companies don't expect to be making a lot of money in the coming years due to slowing economy, so they wind down production and rnd.
greggm2000@reddit
This isn’t that, it’s Intel trying to keep themselves alive.
Legal-Insurance-8291@reddit
They're still under construction, but 18A and 20A use the same equipment so it's not like anything is being wasted.
Dexterus@reddit
Yeah, but ramping twice would take a ton of factory time and money.
Legal-Insurance-8291@reddit
All of the major innovations like BSPD and GAA were meant to be showcased in 20A. It's the big step forward whereas 18A is just some smaller tweaks.
Lalaland94292425@reddit
A year from now:
lol, playing shareholders and redditors like a fiddle
Astigi@reddit
TSMC will be earning big form Intel for a very long time
DYMAXIONman@reddit
Arrow lake was already mostly using TSMC. So not much has changed.
Worldly_Apple1920@reddit
Arrow Lake was originally suppose to be 100% in-house, then reduced to a few SKUs, then completely outsourced to TSMC at the last moment.
ET3D@reddit (OP)
Far as I remember, it was rumoured that only mid-range Arrow Lake CPUs will be made at 20A, which should have arrived later anyway, so this probably doesn't impact time to market too much.
I'm disappointed mainly because I wanted to get some indication of how Intel's new processes function. A lot of people are counting on Intel catching up with TSMC (and believe strongly that it will happen), but so far Intel has simply moved to producing at TSMC.
Dynw@reddit
So the 18A test at Broadcom is failure, and the 20A is apparently a negative success too.
I'm afraid this is a bit worse than a disappointment. This is a colossus falling in slo-mo before our eyes.
Geddagod@reddit
Yea, what a shame. Considering PTL is rumored to use a core that only has minor changes vs LNC, perhaps comparisons might still be possible (prob not package pwr but maybe core+cache+ring power) but there will likely be a lot of caveats and disabling cores to make it possible.
ProfessionalPrincipa@reddit
So... Stacy Rasgon 1, Pat Gelsinger 0?
imaginary_num6er@reddit
Stacy Rasgon's consistent message each quarter is: Intel has hit bottom, buy Nvidia lol
Helpdesk_Guy@reddit
I think, even Stacy has become a tad bit softened up and got empathic the last time I watched him reporting, seeing their tumbling and flounder of flawed products and delayed road-maps everywhere … He likely already just accepted it, to see their split-up.