Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Intel Technology

Intel Makes 45nm Chip 249

Posted by samzenpus from the it-is-wafer-thin dept.
dolphinlover writes "Intel announced today that it created its first microchip using the 45 nanometer manufacturing process that it says will go into its processors in the second half of 2007. Intel said that this development provides it with a 'considerable lead over our competitors in the 45-nanometer generation'."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Makes 45nm Chip More

Intel Makes 45nm Chip

Comments Filter:

  • Says You (Score:4, Funny)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @08:11PM (#14563793) Homepage Journal

    Intel said that this development provides it with a 'considerable lead over our competitors in the 45-nanometer generation'."

    Which means, what?

    Predicitons for the next 18 months:

    • Intel announces sucessful 45nm chip test, announces planned production for late 2007
    • In mid-2006 AMD announces they have been quietly busy and production of 45nm chips to begin in 4th quarter.
    • In November AMD is shipping quad core 45nm chips.
    • Intel board scramble all resources to get chips out (even if at a trickle) ASAP, just get some damn thing out there, NOW!
    • From hardware sites AMD chips receive rave reviews, slaying all competition and making overclockers wet their pants with joy.
    • First Intel chips are tested and found to contain scarcely updated processors which still don't talk to each other very fast, run slow and, once again, are clocked so high you need a big fan and heat sink.
    • Dell announce they are so pleased with Intel they're not going to use AMD chips (at all/any more.)
    • In subsequent months Intel make improvements, now that they have a market presence, but watch their market share drop to 70% or lower.

    i think it's somehow related to moore's law

    • Re:Says You (Score:5, Interesting)

      by level_headed_midwest ( 888889 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @08:15PM (#14563814)
      I heard that AMD will be shipping their first 65nm products in late 2006 and have heard nothing about 45nm production.

      • Re:Says You (Score:5, Informative)

        by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @08:33PM (#14563938)
        AMD has a co-development agreement with IBM and is planning to introduce 45nm parts in 2008.

        • Re:Says You (Score:3, Interesting)

          by OpiumSniper ( 710266 )
          Yes, when AMD came to my school 45 nm was set for 2008, 65nm for later this year I believe.
        • So they'll be a year behind with 65nm and a year behind with 45nm?
          • I'm betting 6 months.

      • Re:Says You (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jelle ( 14827 )
        Intel may have 65nm in Fab D1D right now, with plans to convert 2 more fabs to 65nm while converting D1D to 45nm, they have many more fabs that are much farther away from 65nm. Many Intel chips will have to be made on processes older than 65nm.

        AMD's new Fab65 just opened last October, is already generating fantastic yields at 90nm, and it is ready for 65nm and below (this year, sooner rather than later), and (even though AMD hasn't spoken about doing it), it would not be impossible to retool their Fab30 to

    • Re:Says You (Score:5, Interesting)

      by georgewilliamherbert ( 211790 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @08:18PM (#14563830)
      Unlike other fields, production ramps in semiconductor manufacturing are pretty easy to spot... the amount of new machinery and construction associated with a new process being deployed to a facility are hard to hide, and it's all over the trade press 18 months before stuff starts shipping typically.

      AMD has traditionally been behind Intel on the bleeding edge fab stuff. Intel's dominated the fab tech race by six months or so for years and years. That is not changing here, as far as anyone I know of can see. AMD using SOI sort of blurs the line here, but in terms of process shrinks and the like Intel's ahead.

      AMD's chips being better performers despite being behind some in chip fab is an important feature. But roadmaps based on imaginary pixie dust, in an industry where fabs cost $4 billion or so, are a waste of time even on slashdot.

      • Re:Says You (Score:3, Interesting)

        by darkmeridian ( 119044 )
        AMD licensed magic technology recently where SOI processes would be used to reduce the density of on-die SRAM and DRAM. The company spokesperson said that tech was usually integrated in about two years. Hey, that's 2008! So again, Intel has higher fab tech but AMD may win on architecture yet again.

    • Re:Says You (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I think you need to read the 5-point comments from this popular Slashdot story from earlier today:

    • Re:Says You (Score:3, Funny)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )
      "In mid-2006 AMD announces they have been quietly busy and production of 45nm chips to begin in 4th quarter."

      i.e. waiting to get a leak from intel so they have a clue about what they need to do.

    • Re:Says You (Score:5, Informative)

      by uujjj ( 752925 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @08:33PM (#14563943)
      AMD is nearly a full year behind Intel rolling out 65nm. Intel began volume production at 65nm last summer; AMD will be ramping up in the middle of this year.

      While the parent may be joking, down below you'll find a lot of posts from AMD fanboys insisting that AMD must somehow be ahead. These fanboys are as clueless as the average tech magazine reporter. You can be quite certain that AMD will not be ramping up 45nm before Intel.
      • If Intel began volume production at 65nm last summer, why are we just now seeing a 65nm processor? Does it really take that long from production to retail sale?
      • One interesting tear-down of an Intel chip (Core Duo, I think) suggested that Intel is not scaling geometries as agressively as would be suggested by the roadmap nodes, but gaining more performance from other process innovations such as strained silicon. It may be that Intel's allowing its gates to be a few nanometers longer than the should to reach the next node ahead of the pack.
      • Being ahead or behind in processors is not all about the nanometers you produce them in.

        Transistors are not made of just 'nanometers'. There is more to a transistor than the process node of the steppers. In process technology, AMD is ahead by using SOI and soon added to that very silicon area efficient ZRAM based LIII caches.

        Besides that, it's also about processor architecture (among other things the onboard memory controller).

        Intel may ramp to 45nm before AMD, but AMD's 65nm will kick Intel's 45nm's butt j
        • That's only if use assume that the current processor design used by Intel is used on the new 45nm. Intel has learned from it's mistake with NetBurst (P4) design descisions and are finally heading back in the right direction. So, by the time the 45nm comes out, there will also be a new architecture to place on the new chips. We'll see how things are then.

          • Re:Says You (Score:3, Interesting)

            by jelle ( 14827 )
            "Intel has learned from it's mistake with NetBurst (P4) design descisions and are finally heading back in the right direction."

            Exactly, they are going a step backward by going back to the Pentium-M with some modifications.

            "So, by the time the 45nm comes out, there will also be a new architecture to place on the new chips. We'll see how things are then."

            That is an awful lot of 'forward looking'. AMD will not sit still between now and then either, on either front (process and architecture).

            Intel just canceled
            • ... this would be Tukwila and Poulson with have CSI embedded memory controller architecture in '08 and '09.

              These are Itanium family cpus but Intel has also announced that Xeon processors with CSI will be shipping in the Poulson timeframe.
              If you look at Intel's roadmap, with huge speed increases in FSB, FB DIMMs and multiport (no shared bus) memory connects from sockets to chipsets you realize that embedding memory controller is only one way to get sufficient memory bandwidth.
            • You're also ignoring Intel's plans to introduce Merom in 2H of this year. It's an all new architechture, so we don't know overly much about how it's going to perform, but all indications point toward even better IPC and thermal efficiency than Yonah.

              The biggest improvement you'll see on the AMD side this year is going to be Socket M2, which adds DDR support along with a few other tweaks, but nothing too drastic. The ZRAM deal *just* happened, so don't expect to see any results from that for some time to com

  • Jobs's strategy? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vijayiyer ( 728590 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @08:19PM (#14563838)
    Perhaps this what Steve Jobs referred to when he talked about the efficiency of future chips in Intel's roadmap?
    • Very bad strategy then.

      Intel is seriously droping out of being serious contestant in current technology for quite some time now. It's just like droping a ball to get it back in one of the next few seasons, hopefully other team will remember your showing of good will, act then just as you did now and now fight back. Yeah, right.
      • Intel is seriously droping out of being serious contestant in current technology for quite some time now.

        Uh...do you have any points to back up this assertion? Intel's future roadmap is ahead of AMD's. AMD doesn't even have 65nm chips out, and Intel is already talking about their 45nm plans. It actually looks like, for 2006 at least, it's AMD that's behind.

        How is Intel "seriously droping out?" They're already ahead.
        • AMD doesn't even have 65nm chips out, and Intel is already talking about their 45nm plans. It actually looks like, for 2006 at least, it's AMD that's behind. How is Intel "seriously droping out?" They're already ahead.

          All the die shrinkage in the world can't make up for design shortcomings. A 45nm Pentium M is still going to fall short of an Athlon 64 in memory access, because no matter how small you make it, it still doesn't have an on-die memory contoller. Die shrink just gives you room to maneuver. It

    • I beleive so, as much as AMD fan would like to admit, Intel has the upper hand for future chips. I guess the deciding factors for success will be raw speed vs. overall processing (more cores) vs. low power (portablility). I think with this past years increase of laptop sales, it shows that these people have a little more in mind than just having the fasted possible processor. The decline of the desktop is coming, and Intel seems to be ready.
      • No. The deciding factors will be power, heat and board space. The data centers are running out of power and cooling and floor space. Desktops are not the be all of the market. I think soon you'll see desktop and server chips diverging in architecture and speeds.
    • In particular Jobs was talking about the descendants of the Pentium M - the Core series of processor, which offer excellent performance at lower power consumption. Which is evidenced by the usage of the Core processor in both of Apple's current Intel based products.
      The Pentium M came expanded on the Pentium 3's design, rather than going for the "more GHz is better" approach that the Pentium 4 did. It is more efficient than a Pentium 4 of the same clock speed and uses less power.

  • Why do they always screw up Moores Law (Score:5, Informative)

    by rminsk ( 831757 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @08:19PM (#14563839)
    The new chip makes good on Moore's Law, an industry maxim set forth by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore that stipulates the number of transistors on a chip -- and therefore its processing power -- doubles roughly every 18 months to two years.
    Who added the "and therefore its processing power" to the quote? Was it the reporter or someone from Intel? Moores law has nothing to do with processing power.
    • Double the transistors means double the number of cores and double the cache, which means (roughly) double the processing power. It doesn't sound too wrong to me. Now the focus is more on having lots of cores and less on clock speed, Moore's law might well gain that corollary.
      • double the number of cores? me thinks not. If that was the case, we'd have 32-core processors bye now -- which, needless to say, we don't.
        • Isn't this what the new Sun chips are about? Hmmm, found this eweek artical about it [eweek.com]

          The chip (formerly code-named Niagara), with eight cores that can process four instruction threads simultaneously,

          So, it's not 32 cores but 32 threads on 8 cores. Not what you or the grandparent were looking for exactly but it's something worth mentioning.
        • IIRC, the first decent microprocessors were about 30K transistors and the next generation of chips should fit 300M transistors easily. So with enough crack and enough money, you could theoretically make a 10,000 core chip now. A practical device would need a network and memory on chip, but still - thousands of cores. If the inter-core communications were asynchronous, the cores could run at amazing clock rates, too, since the longest signal paths would be only a picosecond or two.

      • Double the transistors means double the number of cores and double the cache, which means (roughly) double the processing power.

        Historically that has never been true. Though I suppose with multi-core chips we're getting to where you can say 'double the processing power' (which is a very vauge and misleading term, since it offers no where near double the performance of a chip 99% of the time) by doubling the number of cores on a die.

        But from when Moore uttered his 'law' (more like loose estimate based on

    • Who added the "and therefore its processing power" to the quote? Was it the reporter or someone from Intel? Moores law has nothing to do with processing power.

      In popular science, Moore's law is used to describe anything that resembles exponential growth. Not only that, it is applied without regards to whether the underlying technology scales in an exponential way, as long as it appears to have done so for a certain period of time, meaning whichever period gives the desired results. "Computers" and any part
    • Right, it has to do with the increase in transistors, AS STATED IN THE FREAKING QUOTE. The end result is typically an increase in processing power, hence the "therefore" phrase stating such. All factually correct.

      Methinks you're just being pointlessly anal retentive for mod points' sake.

  • We win! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pat_trick ( 218868 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @08:19PM (#14563840)
    Yes, by announcing that we have made one chip at 45nm, we obviously win! ...nevermind that it probably doesn't actually run anything. We haven't made a motherboard for it yet.
    • The also announced that they've shipped 1M of core duo chips.

      Obviously, both announcements are trying to stop the stock fall [yahoo.com] (which started when Intel announced that they haven't hit the sales predictions). Not that AMD doesn't do the same, they've used the same trick several times just like any company.

      It's how capitalism works: People is free to invest were they want and do what they wan but what happens if we try to influence what people wants?

      (By the way is ironic how capitalism is good because it allo

    • Re:We win! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Xendarq ( 685809 )
      None of the press seems to indicate what socket standard the new chips will conform to. If it's Socket T or 479, for example, then they won't require new motherboards. If it's a new socket, then, point taken... although generally the lag to build new m/b's is virtually nonexistent.

  • Holy shit!!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by IAAP ( 937607 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @08:20PM (#14563846)
    A 45 Nautical Mile Chip! Where the fuck are they going to put it?!?

    Whaaa? n.m.? Nano Meee....whaaa??

    Oopps! Sorry!

    • You see, Intel has a cunning plan to pepetuate Moore's Law. By making chips 45 nautical miles across, they can keep doubling the number of transistors for a very long time.
    • No, it is 45 Newton Meters - a very forceful chip...

  • Eh. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by anderm7 ( 68050 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @08:22PM (#14563863) Homepage
    I'll believe it when they start yielding these things at greater numbers than one, on chips with a high SRAM and logic density.

  • Aren't we getting close to the Theoretical Limit? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anna Merikin ( 529843 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @08:26PM (#14563895) Journal
    Unless I misplaced a decimal point or misunderstand physics, isn't 45 nm only a very few generations from needing connections only one molecule thick?

    • Re:Aren't we getting close to the Theoretical Limi (Score:5, Informative)

      by uujjj ( 752925 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @08:38PM (#14563988)
      molecule? This is a crystal we are talking about, so the entire wafer is a "molecule". An atom of Si is about .3nm across.
    • Most molecules are a few to a few dozen angstroms thick (from here [wikipedia.org]), and 45 nm is [google.com] 450 angstrom. So there is about another factor of 10 till we get down to the size of complex molecules. However, I do believe that most of the "stuff" used in the manufacture of chips are either pure elements or simple molecules, which are much smaller (varying from 1 to 5 angstrom [wikipedia.org])..
    • From one molecule thick? We're far from that.

      But we ARE only a few more generations from hitting a rather thick wall: at the 5nm, electrons begin jumping _through_ the insulators to a nearby circuit. So while we're far away from the molecular level, we're still getting closer and closer every day to a very real limit. We should be able to push it down to 4nm with a little extra engineering....but as far a I know, thats going to be it. Anyone else want to comment?

    • Speaking of Theoretical Limits... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @09:24PM (#14564306)

      Mr. Scott. To put it another way -- how big would one of your gates have to be, with a 300 mm wafer, to resolve properly using your current method of lithography?

      Intel Exec. That's easy. Six molecules. We have stuff that big in stock.

      Mr. Scott. Well, suppose I could show you a way to build a gate that could do the same job -- but be only one molecule thick. Would that be worth somethin' to ye?

      Intel Exec. You must be joking.

      Dr. McCoy. Perhaps the professor could use your computer...

      [Later]

      Dr. McCoy. [Whispering] You realize that by giving him the formula we're altering the future.

      Mr. Scott. How do we know he didn't invent the thing?

      Dr. McCoy. [Smiling] Yeah.

    • I once had a conversation with someone who was doing developmental research for an even smaller process for some very large semiconductor manufacturer. According to him, they were one day running some measurements on the first prototype wafers. From experience with every previous process (65, 90, 130, etc.), they were expecting this particular measurement to yield a nice bell curve. Instead, they got a strongly quantized bell curve: it looked more like a histogram. The reason, they realized, was because

  • 45nm wang? (Score:2, Funny)

    by camzmac ( 889291 )
    Intel's marketing campaign: Smaller than AMD!

    Wait...

  • CNET News article has important additional details (Score:5, Informative)

    by MojoStan ( 776183 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @08:34PM (#14563956)
    Here's a link to CNET News's article on this same news:
    One interesting (to me) bit of info from the CNET News article:
    The 45-nanometer process could become particularly interesting because many chip designers believe it will be one of the more difficult transitions in years. The power consumption and performance requirements of these chips will be extremely high and chipmakers are being forced to add exotic materials and new structures to their transistors to ensure the chips function properly...

    "It does get a little more challenging every time, but we come up with new technology and tricks to keep things going," said Bohr.

    If a company botches the process, it could lead to product delays or recalls. Some chipmakers faced these problems during the transition to 130-nanometer chips when they swapped aluminum for copper for making interconnects--the tiny wires inside chips.

    Although Intel might have a "considerable lead over our competitors in the 45-nanometer generation," it doesn't appear that this transition is expected to go as smoothly as their transtion to 65nm (which seems very smooth). Remember Intel's and IBM's difficult transitions to 90nm.

  • Can't say I'm surprised... (Score:4, Funny)

    by themysteryman73 ( 771100 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @08:39PM (#14563995)
    I can't say this is surprising news, there's been talk of 45nm chips for a while now, so I suppose the time has finally come when someone makes one. At the same time, it's still early tech so what are we supposed to do with this news?
    "Hey, Intel's making 45nm chips!"
    "Yum, what flavour?"
    "Er... Internets?"

    Seriously though, I know this is a step forward, but someone tell me when either vendor starts actual production on these chips

  • Doing the hard work (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ranton ( 36917 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @09:10PM (#14564219)
    It seams to make sense that because Intel has the most money, that they can spend money on developing better manufacturing and engineering techniques than their competition. But with all of this extra money, and seamingly having better technological capabilities, AMD is still beating out Intel as far as performance.

    Looks like Intel basically does all of the hard work figuring out how to do things for the first time, and AMD just has to wait until Intel is finished and then just learn from them. I of course know nothing about how to make processors, but it seams that this is the most plausible reason why Intel has trouble making chips that are as good as AMD.

    This news about the 45nm manufacturing looks very bad for AMD, but I doubt it will matter very much. If Intel is doing it by the end of 2007, AMD will probably be doing it by first or second quarter 2008. And if history is any indicator, they will probably be doing it better. But I guess time will tell, maybe this 45nm technique really is too hard for a company without endless money to figure out.
    --

    • Re:Doing the hard work (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Deliveranc3 ( 629997 ) <<deliverance> <at> <level4.org>> on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @10:30PM (#14564720) Journal
      You're close but the biggest element is that AMD liscences a lot of their tech while Intel develops it.

      AMD is part of a consortium of chip manufacturers (with SUN and IBM) who cross liscence to each other, everything from instruction sets to hypertransport, to NRAM, to SOI.

      Intel probably has about the same number of people developing tech but they are trying to do their development in a very corperate way - This is what we need let's do it.

      As opposed to AMD who can be a lot closer to pure science because they just liscence any tech that seems cool or is proven.

      When we see crazy stuff on slashdot like the four gigabit optical memory or the 2 Gigahz CPU AMD is probably looking into that stuff while Intel research is most likely pretending it doesn't exist.

    • But with all of this extra money, and seamingly having better technological capabilities, AMD is still beating out Intel as far as performance.

      That's no longer true. The Core Duo, a low-power laptop chip, keeps up with the Athlon64 3800+ X2. Damn impressive. Merom is expected to shift ahead even more dramatically.

      I of course know nothing about how to make processors, but it seams that this is the most plausible reason why Intel has trouble making chips that are as good as AMD.

      I've never understood the fa
      • The Core Duo is not significantly lower power than the Athlon 3800+ despite being a smaller feature size and the fact that it is a mobile applications chip while the Athlon is a desktop CPU. It is also a 32 bit onlh implementation. Give that Vista and Linux both support 64 bit operations you can bet that I'd want a Turion instead. AMD will be introducing Dual Core Turions shortly - and that is what I will be buying.

        Intel Fanboys have their heads in the sand - look at the directions in market share gains/los
        • The Core Duo is not significantly lower power than the Athlon 3800+ despite being a smaller feature size and the fact that it is a mobile applications chip while the Athlon is a desktop CPU.

          Yes, it is significantly lower power. At 100%, it still consumes less power than the Athlon at idle while matching its performance.

          It is also a 32 bit onlh implementation. Give that Vista and Linux both support 64 bit operations you can bet that I'd want a Turion instead. AMD will be introducing Dual Core Turions shortl
      • Impressive?

        After spending billions on a new fab and R&D, they produce a chip that "Keeps up" with AMD's slowest dual-core chip? The 3800+ is made with older tech and came out last year.

        "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
    • Let's not forget that what is really biting Intel in the ass is their decision to ramp up the clock and have a huge pipeline which owed a whole lot more to marketing than sound design.

      When Pentium IVs came out they were slower in actual performance than Pentium IIIs and this is a strange thing indeed from new and supposedly better design.

      Now that consumers have stopped buying based on clock speed alone (as neither AMD or Intel talk loudly about it anymore) Intel's marketing value decreased to a point wher

  • Right on schedule (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @09:17PM (#14564268)
    Intel's logic development is striving for a two-year cycle for each new process technology. This announcement of functional first-silicon (who knows how long they've actually had it) is part of that natural progression. Here's a table showing this announcement along with previous SRAM test chip announcements:

    Process
    Litho
    Size
    Date

    P860
    130 nm
    18 Mbit
    Mar 2000

    P862
    90 nm
    50 Mbit
    Feb 2002

    P1264
    65 nm
    70 Mbit
    Apr 2004

    P1266
    45 nm
    153 Mbit
    Jan 2006

    Okay ... it's not a table...

  • It is a Chip not a CPU (Score:2, Interesting)

    by karvind ( 833059 )
    Just to make sure, this is not a CPU chip using 45nm technology. This is a test vehicle which contained SRAM (static RAM) and some control logic. SRAM arrays are regular and don't have the same complexity as ALU (arithmetic logic unit) and other control circuits found in CPU. So yes this is a big step because it is gives some indication about how complicated will it be to get a good yield in this process. Also note that SRAM arrays can be easily made defect tolerant by using spare rows/columns. Same is not

  • Ok, can we just put more empty space in now? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fwitness ( 195565 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @10:09PM (#14564593)
    Seriously? Can't I have a chip that runs relatively fast, does everything a modern computer is used for, sans games, and I *don't* have to water-cool? Something like what the VIA Epia series does, but with Intel's backing?

    Is it just me, or is web-browsing and document writing fast enough? It seems like 99% of the time these days I just want something smaller and quieter. If I want pretty shiny games, I'll play them on my xbox390 or sumsuch. Sure you can make bunches of chips for gamers, but give me a slimline chip and I, like many others would flock to it.

    I'm writing this on my 733Mhz laptop, bought for college way back when, and my typing fingers really don't recognize the lack of dual cores.
    • My dual 2ghz G5 with 2g of ram can NOT keep up with me in Photoshop. It just can't.

      The 2.4ghz Athlon on my desk with a gig of ram is chunking out my 3d renders at about 30 hours per frame (print rez high quality etc). Not nearly fast enough - I spend a week waiting for four or five shots.

      My beige g3/366 brings the internets at warp nine with no complaints, and my G3/900 iBook runs the Safari and the TextEdit just fine. It happens to suck total ass for Photoshop in the sense that it's not the G5.

      People us
    • You've answered yourself - VIA is making those kind of things. They're making them very well, and there's no real point Intel trying to compete with them in that space - Intel can't afford to compete directly with them on price, and has no research lead because everyone knows how to make processors at that kind of speed.
    • Something like what the VIA Epia series does, but with Intel's backing?

      Why is Intel's backing even remotely important to this equation? VIA's chips are fully x86-compatible. Anything you can do with an Intel or AMD chip -- sans 64-bit stuff -- is doable on an Epia, just a bit slower but a lot cooler and quieter.

      For that matter, if you're really anxious for something cool and quiet, you can get Pentium-M chips that'll go into micro-ATX or even full-size ATX motherboards. The chips sip power and put out ba
    • Intel's newest mobile chips are xactly that - I'm typing this from my 2Ghz Pentium M, which requires less power and cooling than your 733...

  • Big Stinkin' Deal! (Score:4, Funny)

    by joetheappleguy ( 865543 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @11:15PM (#14564946) Homepage
    I made a 45nm chip meself, but I sneezed and I haven't been able to find it since.

  • Moore's Flaw (Score:2, Insightful)

    by woolio ( 927141 ) *
    Why does the media insist on using the term "Moore's Law"???

    Since when do self-fufilling prophesies become law?

    Self-fufilling prophesies tend to restict one's actions rather than sustain them.... Which is why superstition is harmful....

    If every PHB believes in Moore's quip, then do people get fired for not doubling # transistors every 18 months? Do they get a bonus for doubling the # of transistors in 17 months?

    Perhaps if they weren't so darn busy cramming more transistors on the chip, they could bette

  • Dip? (Score:3, Funny)

    by ruiner13 ( 527499 ) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @01:17AM (#14565413) Homepage
    How big is the bowl of dip? Can't have chips without dip.
  • Why is it that intel can't get their thing together with clock speeds. AMD is crushing them in quite a few areas, so with this transistor shrink, will they perhaps change the very application happy architechture??

Slashdot Top Deals

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Close