Intel Currently Testing 14 nm Tri-Gate Transistors

Status
Not open for further replies.

ksampanna

Distinguished
Apr 11, 2010
1,284
0
19,360
28
Intel's present is always quite far in our future.

Me: Hey dude check it out, it's your latest 22nm i7 I'm using.
Intel engineer: Hmm ... my grandfather was in the design team. He died before I was born. My dad designed this 14nm chip, maybe you'l see that in a few years. Meanwhile, check out this cool mobile 8 nm chip, runs circles around your i7. Your children will be fortunate enough to use this.
 

willard

Distinguished
Nov 12, 2010
2,346
0
19,960
96
[citation][nom]de5_roy[/nom]damn... hey competitors, better watch out.still, until ivb gets benchmarked, all of this is still just speculation.[/citation]
I think you might need to look up the word speculation. It's a FACT that Intel is working on 14nm already. Nobody's speculating about anything.
 

GreaseMonkey_62

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2009
521
0
18,980
0
I've always been an AMD fan, but with Intel's tri-gate transistor, ever shrinking architecture and Bulldozer fail, I'm starting to lean towards Intel for my next build.
 

Goldengoose

Distinguished
Jul 12, 2011
486
0
18,860
29
[citation][nom]GreaseMonkey_62[/nom]I've always been an AMD fan, but with Intel's tri-gate transistor, ever shrinking architecture and Bulldozer fail, I'm starting to lean towards Intel for my next build.[/citation]
I don't like to admit it but i am too.
 

magruder13

Distinguished
Nov 27, 2008
270
0
18,790
3
[citation][nom]Goldengoose[/nom]I don't like to admit it but i am too.[/citation]

I was an amd fan until I noticed an improvement going from my Phenom II X4 to a Intel Core 2 Duo (mobile).
 

if you read bliemer's words.... he never directly related '14 nm tri gate transistors' to 'lab testing'. he emphasized on a way, a device, not a 14 nm 'product'. he didn't specify anything else. even if intel was working on 14 nm cpus, they won't reveal much.
my comment about ivb, intel has been consistent with their cpus' performance so far, but i am not believing anything until i see some thorough reviews.
 

chaosgs

Distinguished
Sep 9, 2006
823
0
19,010
6
[citation][nom]Goldengoose[/nom]I don't like to admit it but i am too.[/citation]


Wouldn't it be in our wisest, decision to support the underdog. The ONLY company left to compete? AMD may not be the fastest, but they do offer us cheaper offerings.
 

greatsaltedone

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2010
65
0
18,630
0
The only build I see myself putting an AMD chip in for the future is a HTPC using llano which could be used as a backup gaming comp for LANs and such. Tis a sad day, i haven't had an intel chip in my main comp since a pentium 166 way back in the day.

still, its undeniable that intel wins, at least for the home workstation.
 

theuniquegamer

Distinguished
Sep 7, 2011
279
0
18,790
1
45nm-32nm-22nm-14nm-10nm....????
How small they can built a transister?because they can't go less than 2nm in current semiconductor material , less than 2nm they will scatter by the temperature. So they should consider molbdenite like material in which the transistor can be built up to some angstroms.
(1 angstrom=0.1nm)
 
[citation][nom]chaosgs[/nom]Wouldn't it be in our wisest, decision to support the underdog. The ONLY company left to compete? AMD may not be the fastest, but they do offer us cheaper offerings.[/citation]
The trouble is... AMD really no longer competes.

They almost need to break up Intel into smaller competing companies. They're heading toward an anti-trust.
 

soccerdocks

Distinguished
May 24, 2011
175
0
18,710
5
[citation][nom]lunaticwoda[/nom]Cant wait for 1nm chips[/citation]

1nm is 10 angstroms, which is the length of about 5 atoms. This is insanely small. I doubt that's gonna happen anytime within the next 50 years minimum. Quantum tunneling is just going to be way to prevalent at that size.
 
[citation][nom]lunaticwoda[/nom]Cant wait for 1nm chips[/citation]
Most likely 1nm in not possible. A copper atom is 0.128 nm and only a few thick will jump around. Intel better start looking hard at layering, stacking, and or moving data faster and farther with fiber optics/superconductors. Intel is projecting 10nm production by 2018 so lower nm may soon end.

Carbon nano tubes walls are thicker than 1nm and could be the limit.
 

zanny

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2008
214
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]ubercake[/nom]The trouble is... AMD really no longer competes.They almost need to break up Intel into smaller competing companies. They're heading toward an anti-trust.[/citation]

What? Monopolies are when there is a market leader that uses their market dominance to drive competition out of the market. Right now, Intel is anything BUT using its position to force adoption. ARM is making huge inroads into netbooks in the next few years, expect them on laptops as a commonplace occurrence when Windows 8 comes out.

The fact Intel is dominating the desktop mainstream is because we sold our souls to them in the 90s. We said, hey x86, we will design EVERYTHING for you. And we did. So today, to build a processor that can run that instruction set, you must license it from Intel. That is the real burden of modern computing, it is not that Intel dominates the desktop / laptop market, it is that we have written all of our software for x86 when it isn't an open standard so you can't expect much competition in the hardware space when Intel controls who can use it.

There is the flip side that Intel now has to license AMD64 instructions for 64 bit, but that is what is keeping AMD in the game. Even if they stop making processors, Intel is stuck licensing the AMD64 set from AMD because they used it at the 64 bit transition period and now it is too late to back on that.

But Intel is not a monopoly, and it is not a trust. You need to start worrying if Intel starts using its mass market control of mid to high range processors to force certain programs to stop running on a case by case basis.
 

Area51

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2008
95
0
18,630
0
At certain point they don't need to shrink it anymore, they just need to increase transistor count to increase feature and cores. Shrink is good to increase the number of CPU's / wafer. They can also just increase the wafer size.
 

koolkat574

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2011
53
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]GreaseMonkey_62[/nom]I've always been an AMD fan, but with Intel's tri-gate transistor, ever shrinking architecture and Bulldozer fail, I'm starting to lean towards Intel for my next build.[/citation]

That is also how I felt; then I built a Sandy Bridge system and haven't looked back!
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]lunaticwoda[/nom]Cant wait for 1nm chips[/citation]

i believe 6-7nm is the physical limit they can hit.

[citation][nom]Goldengoose[/nom]I don't like to admit it but i am too.[/citation]
[citation][nom]GreaseMonkey_62[/nom]I've always been an AMD fan, but with Intel's tri-gate transistor, ever shrinking architecture and Bulldozer fail, I'm starting to lean towards Intel for my next build.[/citation]

before i lean to intel, i need to see windows 8, and revision 1 of bulldozer
i also wouldn't pick a processor based on itunes and other single core applications.
 

neuromancer2701

Distinguished
Jun 9, 2009
10
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]soccerdocks[/nom]1nm is 10 angstroms, which is the length of about 5 atoms. This is insanely small. I doubt that's gonna happen anytime within the next 50 years minimum. Quantum tunneling is just going to be way to prevalent at that size.[/citation]

It looks like order of magnitude shrink happen every ~15 years. So it would break the current curve it 1nm wasn't achieved until 2060. It should happen before 2030. Intel and other semiconductor companies have teams working on this stuff decades out. At some point quantum computing will takeover but the question is how that transition is going to happen.
 

noob2222

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2007
2,722
0
20,860
40
There is the flip side that Intel now has to license AMD64 instructions for 64 bit, but that is what is keeping AMD in the game. Even if they stop making processors, Intel is stuck licensing the AMD64 set from AMD because they used it at the 64 bit transition period and now it is too late to back on that.
Thats called a cross-liscence agreement. The one that AMD made public cost AMD 10% of every cpu sold, not sure if the new one eliminated the royalty fee or not. Intel got AMD64 for free while being paid by AMD for x86.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS