Intel officially kills "Tick Tock"?

WYP

News Guru
It seems Intel's clock has finally broken, with the company finally moving away from their classic Tick, Tock CPU release model to a new Process, Architecture, Optimization model. Now every process node will have 3 CPU generations rather than just two.

23095153850l.JPG


Read more on Intel killing their Tick-Tock CPU release model.
 
It's working fine for me mate. Now correct me if i'm wrong here because i'm nearly half a century. If the next gen Intel CPU's are going Tick Tock Optimise would that not take more time to process the data?.
 
This can be good and bad, I guess we are a bit used to the Processes > Architecture changes per year but it usually means a new rig every 2 years for a lot of enthusiasts, I dont know about you but if this means we can use the same socket for another year but with the latest CPU's i think thats a green move in my book.

I dont think performance will be hindered much, by this at this time, Just need to wait for what the future brings.
 
It's working fine for me mate. Now correct me if i'm wrong here because i'm nearly half a century. If the next gen Intel CPU's are going Tick Tock Optimise would that not take more time to process the data?.

No mate it's the development cycle not the processing cycle being talked about.
It just means that new generations of processors will take an extra year in between die shrinks as far as I can tell.
 
Interesting I wonder what's going to happen when they can't go any smaller, where is the technology going I wonder
 
Interesting I wonder what's going to happen when they can't go any smaller, where is the technology going I wonder

Totally uneducated guess but I think it's more for financial reasons they're adding the extra cycle - If there's no real (competition) pressure it makes sense to mature the processes to get maximum returns out of the investment and research. Focus more on the performance per watt and efficiency.
 
Totally uneducated guess but I think it's more for financial reasons they're adding the extra cycle - If there's no real (competition) pressure it makes sense to mature the processes to get maximum returns out of the investment and research. Focus more on the performance per watt and efficiency.

It's both. Technological and financial is the reason for this new development plan.
 
As far as I was aware you could go down to a 1nm before another process needed to figured out, but r&d wasn't up to scratch I'm gonna go with they need more time to gather the data they need to go down that low, also by the way the industry works 10nm must be being tested inside closed doors, were not to far away from radical changes.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top