Home Gaming Intel can’t keep up with their Tick-Tock cycle, delay 10nm CPU

Intel can’t keep up with their Tick-Tock cycle, delay 10nm CPU

2 min read

Intel ceases Tick Tock development cycle

Intel has been pumping out new processors faster than any of its competitors could make them, and it’s almost as if we’ve been stuck in a never-ending loop of Wells and Lakes over the past few months. The company’s tick tock cycle is to blame for that – pushing development on new chips to keep in line with the golden Moore’s Law of processing. A law which is now becoming impossible to keep up with.

For a long time now, Intel has adhered to a tick tock cycle. First, CPUs would focus on shrinking existing architecture on to smaller dies (the tick) and then prioritise performance improvements on the current technology (the tock). That meant CPUs were getting smaller and smaller every two generational launches – which has been the rule of thumb since 22nm all the way down to Skylake, which is sitting on a miniature 14nm.

Getting the transistors down to 14nm was tough for Intel though, and it’s made them reconsider their strategy with the already announced follow-up, Cannonlake. The chip was previously meant to launch in 2016 as part of the tick cycle, but Intel has somewhat admitted defeat by revealing an intermittent chip launch beforehand. Kaby Lake (should’ve been Kirby!) will be the third 14nm CPU line, launching in 2016 while Cannonlake is shifted to mid-2017.

In other words, goodbye Tick – Tock Cycle.

Intel CEO Brian Krzanich was hesitant to say that the manufacturing cycle was gone for good, but stressed that the smaller architecture was making it difficult to produce CPUs on such a frequent basis. Even though the Intel penned Moore’s Law states that transistor density will double every 18-24 months, it says nothing about the amount of work that is required to make that happen. IBM earlier last week revealed a 7nm chip, but there’s no word on just how strenuous it was to create even one.

It also doesn’t help that Intel don’t have any viable competition breathing down their necks, so taking a little more time isn’t exactly going to break their bank. For now, we can just hope that Kaby Lake isn’t the mild disappointment that Skylake is.

Last Updated: July 16, 2015


  1. Question people would also ask now is do they upgrade or not. I for one am on a i5-2500 and would like to go on skylake but I ask myself is it worth the 20% performance boost for that premium price they pop on it.


    • SkittelZA

      July 16, 2015 at 10:16

      Also still on the 2500. It doesn’t seem worth upgrading at all, except GPU every few years.

      In other news, there a few spelling mistakes in the synopsis visible on the LG home page. “Technoligy” and “steaduly” in this article.


    • Alien Emperor Trevor

      July 16, 2015 at 10:22

      Nope. Nobody’s really needed a high-end CPU for gaming for ages, and they won’t until the current console gen ends. GPU is way more important, CPU only comes into it once you start going to the 4K range.


    • Kromas,powered by windows 10.

      July 16, 2015 at 10:26

      I would say an upgrade in a few months time would be good due to USB 3.1 and DDR4. Let them just squash a few bugs first.


      • Gareth Smith

        July 16, 2015 at 10:52

        Agreed. DDR4 starting at 2666MHz will be nice, but not dramatic. Running 2500K and can always OC a bit when it starts bottlenecking. Waiting now to see Fury X local pricing, as even the normal 980’s price is above R8k atm.


        • Kromas,powered by windows 10.

          July 16, 2015 at 11:36

          I am a HUGE AMD fan but I believe the Fury X is not a good fit for their brand and opted out of buying it. Rather get a R9 390x as they should be cheaper and work just as well sub 4K.

          Saving my cash for the HTC re VIVE.


  2. Kromas,powered by windows 10.

    July 16, 2015 at 10:17

    What are they waiting for?



  3. Brady miaau

    July 16, 2015 at 10:40

    Moores law has changed a lot if we look at the late 90’s, early 2000’s and compare to the last five years.

    Standard office requirements

    Six year old tech is extremely usable today, where in the year 2000, after two years you needed a new PC, to keep up with office.


    not sure about that, but I think it has also slowed down there.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Check Also

Turns out Microsoft will require a TPM chip for you to install Windows 11

Turns out the much hyped low-specs for Microsoft's new operating system might be more rest…