Intel Targeting 22nm Chips by 2011

[Marcus Yam]

Big things are getting smaller.

Intel Targeting 22nm Chips by 2011 : Read more

 

[ubernoobie]

Damn, and 32nm isn't even on the mainstream market for cpus

 

[doomtomb]

Intel is on a roll.

 

[DoofusOfDeath]

Anyone know when we'll start seeing laptops based on the Intel processors that are being announced tomorrow? (Specifically, Core i7-820QM or Core i7-720QM)

 

[Shadow703793]

[citation][nom]doofusofdeath[/nom]Anyone know when we'll start seeing laptops based on the Intel processors that are being announced tomorrow? (Specifically, Core i7-820QM or Core i7-720QM)[/citation]
^I'd say around Christmas or earlier.

 

[Guest]

By 2011? The article says 2nd half 2011, so that would be by 2012, but we all know how that usually works out, so let's say "around 2012".

 

[DoofusOfDeath]

@shadow703793: Thanks. Just occurred to me that I should post this on the homepage's questions section, not in this thread.

 

[zerapio]

[citation][nom]2012_or_gtfo[/nom]By 2011? The article says 2nd half 2011, so that would be by 2012, but we all know how that usually works out, so let's say "around 2012".[/citation]
Eh? It says 2011 because it IS 2011. All of Intel's die shrinks on its new tick-tock model have been introduced in fall of an odd year. Penryn (2007), Westmere (2009) and Ivy Bridge (2011).

 

[presidenteody]

I WANT ONE!!!

 

[Guest]

zerapio: Read the headline, "by 2011" means sometime late 2010, when the article states the 2nd half of 2011. "By" indicates it will happen "before".

 

[zerapio]

[citation][nom]english_grammar_wizardry[/nom]zerapio: Read the headline, "by 2011" means sometime late 2010, when the article states the 2nd half of 2011. "By" indicates it will happen "before".[/citation]
Wow, you're serious. Here, read something: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/by
In this article the word 'by' is used as meaning "no later than" or no later than 2011. The year 2011 is not an instant so therefore the second half of 2011 is still considered as 2011.

 

[Guest]

zerapio: Way to twist things around to support your thesis. "By the end of 2011" or "Sometime in 2011" would support your argument, but he said "By 2011", so that means January 1, 2011 the **instant** that 2011 happens.

Compare, why would the wording:

"By the end of"

exist if

"By..."

Meant the same thing? "By the end of the day" or "By today". "By the end of the week", or "By this week". Since the date/time/year here are arbitrary and don't contribute a context, please explain to me that this is how you speak in normal life.

 

[tempelife]

Isn't Moore's law going to hit a massive hurdle at 16-18nm in roughly 2013, which would be the logical step after 22nm? I hear the die is too small for electricity to not to create damage. Any experts want to weigh in on this. I just have a vague recollection from a nanotechnology show I watched I the science channel about 9 months ago.

 

[zerapio]

[citation][nom]zerapiownage[/nom]zerapio: Way to twist things around to support your thesis.[/citation]
You: by 2011 = before 2011
Dictionary: by 2011 = no later than 2011

I can see how by your definition you think Marcus is wrong but the dictionary agrees with him. End of conversation.

 

[Dekasav]

"If you're early, you're on-time
If you're on-time, you're late
If you're late, don't show up."

 

[Guest]

zerapio: No, you're injecting into the definition that 2011 is not an "instant" or an "event", but it is, you sound like Christian-folk referencing the Bible, then interpreting it to mean whatever you want(and then trying to declare the conversation over).

 

[matt87_50]

so, does that mean 45MB of cache! 😀

i7 9xx has 700m transistors, 8meg of cache.
so in two years will have 4 times the transistors and 5 times the cache?

guess i'll upgrade then (if gpgpu hasn't completely destroyed any reason to have a powerful cpu, on the other hand these chips would be mighty awesome in larrabee too.)

[citation][nom]tempelife[/nom]Isn't Moore's law going to hit a massive hurdle at 16-18nm in roughly 2013, which would be the logical step after 22nm? I hear the die is too small for electricity to not to create damage. Any experts want to weigh in on this. I just have a vague recollection from a nanotechnology show I watched I the science channel about 9 months ago.[/citation]

Apparently there is an issue with quantum tunneling. I herd a year or so ago that someone had figured out away to reliably predict how small you can make it before you get quantum tunneling, so if they don't find away around that they may indeed hit a brick wall.

 

[belardo]

Geez..

Whatever. The 45nm are still new and no rush to put 22nm out too fast. They are making memory chips, as usual. We won't be seeing any complex CPUs using 22nm for 2 years... which is about right.

 

[socrates047]

"Big things are getting smaller." lol

 

[Guest]

This sounds just like HDDs. I remember a few years ago they saying that HDD manufacturers will hit a wall in the amount of data that could be crammed onto a platter, but yet they managed to find a way around it and 2TB drives are becoming affordable. The top R&D guys knew this was coming ages ago and I bet they are already working out ways around it.

 

[sonofliberty08]

but can it run crysis ???

 

[krazynutz]

[citation][nom]zerapio[/nom]You: by 2011 = before 2011Dictionary: by 2011 = no later than 2011I can see how by your definition you think Marcus is wrong but the dictionary agrees with him. End of conversation.[/citation]

Webster's, huh? I just looked up "by" on dictionary.com and, after perusing the dozen definitions, came upon this gem:

6) not later than; at or before: "I usually finish work by five o'clock."

On Webster's, it's "no later than" example is "by 2pm"

So I'd say it's pretty conclusive that the dictionary states that by using "by" you mean "no later than the BEGINNING of said time period"

"by 2pm" or "by 5 o'clock" does NOT mean falling anywhere between 2 and 3pm or between 5 and 6"

SO, the article should have the headline, "Intel Targeting 22nm Chips by the end of 2011

And that means, Zerapio, you're an idiot.

 

[Gin Fushicho]

Well , looks liek they are going to hit a brick wall before I turn 25. goody. I get ot see the rise of computers , and then the halt of them.

 

[zerapio]

Hey Krazynutz, since you know so much about grammar and I'm an idiot let me dedicate this to you: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&oi=video_result&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D2VZxZZVn2iE&ei=tbC5SpivIpL0sgOxgogd&usg=AFQjCNHTBwAStvTCnxdjzkb7FkMh65CcVQ&sig2=9AcsakA70mbTmLwOu6ntkg

 

[False_Dmitry_II]

[citation][nom]Gin Fushicho[/nom]Well , looks liek they are going to hit a brick wall before I turn 25. goody. I get ot see the rise of computers , and then the halt of them.[/citation]

No, if they can't make it smaller it'll just have one of three things done. 1. The new CPU's do nothing other than do more work per cycle. 2. They go massively parallel - and this time, programs will have to be written to use as many cores as possible instead of hard coding them for two or three. 3. Actually switch from x86 to something new.

I suppose that multiple sockets are possible too. No matter what, until they figure a way to fix the problem they'll find a way to walk around it first. Like I wouldn't be surprised if they fixed the problem with parallel interfaces and arrival times of bits (PATA) and we switched back to parallel to use the (currently theoretical) speed of it instead of SATA.