Comments Locked

14 Comments

Back to Article

  • whatthe123 - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link

    Looks both good and bad for intel. Good because I doubt they would intentionally push the target up when they've been missing the original target for half a decade, so it's likely real performance gains and an already impressive chip, bad because moving to TSMC is probably a big reason they've hit an unexpected improvement in performance. Could mean strong competition from 5nm tsmc parts next year.
  • shabby - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link

    I wonder who made the suggestion to use tsmc... and then i wonder if they said to themselves "uh that was a joke guys" lolol
  • whatthe123 - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link

    Rumor was Keller suggested it, though I wouldn't be surprised if Raja also suggested it since they kept missing 10nm deadlines and hes done designs on TSMC before. I'm sure intel will eventually get their fabs back on their feet but it was just bad business not to outsource more parts in the interim, especially on chiplet designs like this. Effectively upping capacity substantially by ordering TSMC is $$$$ in the bank in this market.
  • drothgery - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link

    Ponte Vecchio is a multi-chip module. A lot of it is built on Intel processes.
  • Zzzoom - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link

    A lot of a Ryzen or EPYC is built on Globalfoundries processes too, it's still compute that matters.
  • drothgery - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link

    In this case the Xe HPC cores are on TMSC N5, but the Golden Cove cores are Intel 7 (and a bunch of stuff on various other processes).
  • Spunjji - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link

    Wondering if this is a big change (1.7 to 2.1, for example) or a small one (1.9 to 2.01).
  • Hardware Geek - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link

    I'll believe it when it is up and running. 3 years late and how much over budget?
  • Spunjji - Wednesday, November 10, 2021 - link

    Also wondering what the power usage will look like compared with AMD's 1.5 EFLOPS super computer...
  • lightningz71 - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link

    Given the multiple times it's been pushed back, and the fact that the foundry industry isn't standing still, nor is the competition, it is only fitting, and honestly to be expected, that the final delivered performance of the system be above the originally expected numbers when the contract was signed many years ago!
  • Oxford Guy - Friday, October 29, 2021 - link

    I wonder if IBM would have been a better choice, for delivering a product on time.
  • mode_13h - Monday, November 1, 2021 - link

    No, it would've taken IBM way longer to develop comparable IP. Ever heard of an IBM GPU? Didn't think so.
  • Oxford Guy - Friday, November 5, 2021 - link

    Nvidia or AMD GPUs would have been paired with IBM’s CPUs, obviously.
  • PleaseNoMoreVideoAds - Tuesday, November 2, 2021 - link

    Again with the autoplaying video ads. Please, Anandtech, you can do better.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now