Slashdot Mirror
Intel To Produce 65-Nanometer Chips In 2005
Ridgelift writes "In keeping with Moore's Law, Intel will begin mass-producing chips using 65-nanometer process technology in 2005, according to a ZDNet article (additional coverage at EE Times and The Inquirer). Intel recently produced a Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) cell at 0.57 square microns, in comparison to 90-nanometer process measuring 1 square micron. "You can get a 40 to 50 percent increase in clock speed with no further improvements" says Intel director Mark Bohr."
Bohr? I wonder if he really knows where the manufacturing plans are or where they're going.
The gate length--the distance electrons travel to get from the source to the drain on a transistor and thereby flip the transistor on--drops from 50 nanometers to 35 nanometers in 65-nanometer chips.
For all those lazy or out of condition electrons out there, they only have to travel 35 nanometers now to get some work done.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
"You can get a 40 to 50 percent increase in clock speed with no further improvements" says Intel director Mark Bohr."
:-)
Yeah, I get those "40 to 50 percent increase" emails all the time...I've been deleting them as fast as they come in.
Ohhhhhh...wait.... He said CLOCK, not COCK
nevermind
TDz.
So does this mean, with 60nm tech, the die can be four times as large with an increase of 500% power? If we're moving from 90nm to 60nm, in the same die size that effectively puts us at a 30% efficiency increase. Times four (heck, just add more layers if you need more circuits!)...well, I'm hoping this means we see 20Ghz chips in time for Longhorn's launch. Watch it crash in 1/5 of the time!!
Damon,
http://actionPlant.com
If they were really thinking ahead, they should have tried for 64 nanometers. Then, when the chip size halves every few years according to Moore's law, it can stay a whole number of nanometers for a few more years yet.
It's called Moore's Law because the guy at CompUSA would get funny looks if he said Moore's Theorem. Often times you must dumb down your speech and use improper or vague terms to be understood.
Sad and true, a winning combination!
what is scarier, you thought of it, or somebody did it
X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
True, they should be focussing on making their chips slower, not faster. Silly Intel!
I work in the Semi industry, and Intel is by far the leader in fab technology. It's hysterical to hear someone imply that they aren't going to improve anything.
Similarly, "Murphy's Law" was supposed to be called "Murphy's Axiom" but something got screwed up.
Does it hurt to hear them lying? Was this the only world you had?
No. Intel is always competing with itself. They want to make their products obsolete as soon as possible so that people upgrade.
Please mod parent back down, as I have made him look foolish.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
Yes, but as you well know anything that can go wrong woll.
Wouldn't Moore's Law have failed by now without AMD competing for market share?
I guess Sun, IBM, and Motorolla have not been making processors, only Intel and AMD. What would happen if one of those companies went under, I guess the other one would get 100% market share since their are no other processor designers in the world.