Intel Targeting 22nm Chips by 2011

[anamaniac]

Hole shit...
They already made a few 22nms!?!?!

I wonder how much each 22nm cheap to date has cost to produce...
I wonder if they're functional (or have only a 1% or less yield).

 

[webbwbb]

They are and have been researching other chemicals to use besides silicon in the manufacturing process. Silicon has a lot of resistance and a lot of waste. If they can make them with another material then they will be able to go much smaller. This is actually the reason they started using the high-K process.

 

[back_by_demand]

It won't be long before they start using artificially produced Diamonds to make everyday CPUs. Back in 2003 a Diamond CPU reached 81GHz, I haven't heard anything since then but trust me, Intel and AMD and IBM will be heavily investing R&D into Diamond CPUs for the future. But likely before we do Graphene will be a step along the way.

Incidentally, a single Carbon atom thickness transistor has already been made. That's a staggering 0.1nm, or 220 times thinner than 22nm.
OMG?!? WFT?!?

 

[krazynutz]

[citation][nom]zerapio[/nom]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&sou [...] mLwOu6ntkg[/citation]
Ha ha...okay you got me on that one. I changed my sentence midway and didn't change my "it's" to "its". I originally ended it before "example" which would have been the correct usage. But, touché, nonetheless.

Back on topic though, yeah, I've heard of that diamond CPU as well. I'm sure before they hit a roadblock with CPU architecture they'll have an affordable alternative for silicon.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]krazynutz[/nom]Back on topic though, yeah, I've heard of that diamond CPU as well.[/citation]
About time too, I did wonder if had wandered into a forum called "Grammar Nazis" by mistake...

 

[zerapio]

[citation][nom]krazynutz[/nom]Ha ha...okay you got me on that one. I changed my sentence midway and didn't change my "it's" to "its". I originally ended it before "example" which would have been the correct usage. But, touché, nonetheless.[/citation]
No worries man; it happens to everyone. BTW I'm not normally I'm not that big of an ass. I guess I was pissed off before posting. Peace!

 

[joebob2000]

[citation][nom]krazynutz[/nom]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 2011And that means, Zerapio, you're an idiot.[/citation]

You two are incredible. Here is how it works outside of the internets (you will find this out when you have a meaningful job): When you say "i will do X by Y" to your co workers, this means "sometime during Y I will have X done". When your boss tells you "you need to have X done by Y" it means "the earlier you have X done the more likely you are to keep your job".

 

[dextermat]

amd getting 6 core ready with same tech

intel getting new tech : +1 to intel on that

 

[puddleglum]

[citation][nom]anamaniac[/nom]Hole shit...They already made a few 22nms!?!?![/citation]

Now that's a strange religion -- "the worship of feces." 😀

 

[krazynutz]

[citation][nom]joebob2000[/nom]You two are incredible. Here is how it works outside of the internets (you will find this out when you have a meaningful job): When you say "i will do X by Y" to your co workers, this means "sometime during Y I will have X done". When your boss tells you "you need to have X done by Y" it means "the earlier you have X done the more likely you are to keep your job".[/citation]
Are those the rules you just made up? Wow. I'm pretty sure the dictionary definition works both on the internet AND at meaningful jobs. Crazy I know. And thanks for calling me incredible. My fellow coworkers at my already-landed, meaningful job seem to think so. Cheers.

 

[quikslyver]

... i didn't want to get dragged into an internet debate; i think most of us know how they usually go. But since i was dragged in by discriminitory generalizations ...

you sound like Christian-folk referencing the Bible, then interpreting it to mean whatever you want(and then trying to declare the conversation over).

My intention is not to start a religious discussion (though, if you have any questions you would like to discuss privately, i'm open), but just like any group containing billions of people, there are those who fit the accusation, and those who don't.

But more to the point of the story ... i can't believe i missed 2009 ... wait, it's not 2010 yet, but i just read it's not 2009 either ... how DOES that work??? Fyi, january 1, 2011 0:00:01 is not when 2011 ends.

And finally, the announcement and the article you read referencing the announcement both state:

Intel said that production chips using the 22nm process should be ready for the second half of 2011.

Interestingly enough, in that cut and paste, i don't even see the word "by".

gotta love internet arguements.

Just another one of those "Christian-folks" twisting the story to their liking,

Quikslyver

 

[quikslyver]

Please excuse my lack of proof reading on the above post. Hopefully it was obvious that i had 2 quotation excerpts that i did not put in quotation marks. For some reason i am not seeing any way to edit my post (due to my own oversight i'm sure).

I am kind of excited for the prospect of how much this could improve performance, etc., but as others have pointed out, this is actually quite a way off before we will benefit from it ... in the meantime, Intel will profit hugely from their already almost obsolete, but the best that we can get processors. And we will pay dearly for each miniscule shade of increased performance.

/sigh, c'est la vie (probably didn't spell that right either).

 

[krazynutz]

Quikslyver - The argument was based on the headline - not the body text. Oh, and "c'est la vie" is spelled correctly

And according to an English professor of 30 years, "'By 2011' means it will happen before or perhaps on Jan. 1, 2011. It does NOT mean it could happen anytime in 2011. Even Jan. 1 is debatable."

So 😛

 

[krazynutz]

You got it. On to the real matter at hand. Here's a more extensive story on the die shrink: Linky
Good article. A key paragraph on shrinking beyond 22nm is stated below:
"Intel is planning to use 193nm immersion lithography for critical layers, and double patterning for the rest. The company is unlikely to use EUV (Extreme UltraViolet) tools even for the 15nm process in 2013, but may consider them for use in the 11nm process that will be introduced in 2015."

 

[lx_lew]

Don't get surprised. In a decade, or maybe even sooner, based on Intel's progress, processors will be far faster, maybe even in the 10 gHz range. This is because of the carbon nanotubes, which will replace the limited supply of silicon. Here's the link.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1130606,00.asp

 

[lx_lew]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1130606,00.asp

 

[lx_lew]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1130606,00.asp

sorry, url button didn't work