Can anyone explain the shortage of 14nm chips? This article simply mentions that most readers are aware of this fact and I am unable to find supporting articles.
And I wouldn't be surprised more customer are looking at EPYC anyway, every microcode update from Intel has resulted in % of performance lost, at this rate we will be back to Broadwell era soon.
Because Intel's 10nm process is delayed, their 14nm fab is overbooked leading to a chip shortage.
Two fabs output more chips than one fab. Intel has deals with other companies for both 10nm and 14nm production and some of those deals are undoubtedly based on Intel moving their own chips to 10nm. At capacity and unable to increase as expected means customers move to other companies that make compatible, competitive products. Once those companies move, they may not come back.
This is quite a bad position to be in.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/14nm-processor-intel-short...
> That ramp is occurring as Intel is also bringing production of its 14nm XMM 7560 modems online for Apple during the second half of this year. The new Apple contract, which consists of millions of modems for iPhones, will certainly be a top priority at Intel's fabs.
Assuming this to be so, Apple may not be allocated the highest priority.
We need competition in the FPGA space again.
I understood that TSMC would be manufacturing the next round of AMD processors, since Global Foundaries didn't have 7nm ready.
Not the same as when a manufacturer says they’re making as many as possible and they’re selling out.
Intel's recent 300-series chipset refresh found its new chipsets coming to market with the 14nm process, which is necessary to meet California's new power standards.
Microcontrollers are all backlogged, chip capacitors are also backlogged. PCB Fabs are backlogged, assembly houses at least in the US are at capacity.
What I suspect is demand for electronic 'things' by poor people in China, India, and Africa are outstripping supply chains across the board.
Intel's XCC die is 694mm^2 for a 28-core, while Zen / Zeppelin is 213mm^2 for an 8-core. Intel's XCC 28 core is around 25mm^2 per core, while AMD's Zen is 26.6mm^2 per core... suggesting a slight advantage to Intel!
Furthermore: Intel's XCC die has 28-cores. When defects come into XCC, Intel can simply disable those cores and sell them for cheaper. For example, Intel's Xeon Platinum 8160 is a 24-core. Presumably, 4-cores are defective but Intel can still sell it for $5000 or so.
So a defective product would require a manufacturing defect somewhere critical. But individual cores can most certainly be disabled during the manufacturing process and sold as a lower tier product, like the Xeon Platinum 8160
As such, Intel definitely has good yields, at least on 14nm production.
------------
The main advantage is that AMD's strategy works way better when yields are poor due to a new process being not fully understood. But as defect rates drop, Intel's monolithic strategy seems to have slight advantages over AMD's. (Remember: Intel's cores are slightly superior in IPC, have slightly faster caches, and AVX512 enabled).
AMD's strategy is definitely good, but I don't think Intel is really that far behind.