Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel To Produce 65-Nanometer Chips In 2005

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the including-prince's-wardrobe dept.

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."

18 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. Intel culture by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What a beautifully telling Intel quote that is, "You can get a 40 to 50 percent increase in clock speed with no further improvements". Just keep ramping it up boys.

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  2. Moore's Law by worst_name_ever · · Score: 4, Insightful
    In keeping with Moore's Law

    Well, more like "keeping Moore's Law a self-fulfilling prediction for yet another generation of processors". ;)

    --

    In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
  3. I have no doubt they can do it..... by Selecter · · Score: 4, Insightful
    But it seems to me to be rather premature announcement, supposing these chips will be out when Intel says they will be. I think Intel is starting to feel the heat from quarters they didnt expect, like AMD and Apple via the good graces of IBM. Athlon 64 looks like a winner and so does the IBM made G5. IBM and AMD both have great looking roadmaps for the future.

    This smells like a another smear piece by Intel to me, kinda like paper launching the P4 Emergency Edition on AMD's rollout day for the Athlon 64.

    Boo. Hiss.

    1. Re:I have no doubt they can do it..... by Selecter · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I thinks it's premature to build a few test SDRAM cells and then magically announce they are going to build chips using that tech in possibly less than 1 year and 1 month. It's far more likely they will not meet that target, given the real hurdles of fully implementing that process to overcome. A few SDRAM cells does not a P5(6?) make.

      Also, someone is not telling the truth.

      "The 65-nanometer chips will not include the IBM-touted silicon-on-insulator technology, either. "We have not seen any significant performance advantages with SOI," Bohr said."

      Well, who is it? IBM and AMD are going with it. Who's wrong, Intel or IBM/AMD? I'd like to know.

  4. Moore's "Law"? by nacturation · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've always wondered why it's called Moore's Law. After all, it's not something which is mathematically provable. You'd figure computer scientists and systems engineers would be a bit more rigorous and call it Moore's Theorem, Moore's Axiom, or Moore's Postulate (I'm not sure what the best terminology is for this kind of conjecture). Granted, it has been approximately held, but there's no underlying reason why processor speed couldn't increase by an order of magnitude in a few months given the right implementation.

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  5. Is that enough? by nnnneedles · · Score: 3, Insightful

    50%, hmm.

    doesn't Moore's law require 100% increase every 18 months? Yeah I know Moore's law isn't really about speed, but still.

    --
    Will code a sig generator for food
  6. PC Toaster by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With a large enough heatsink, I could put a few slices of bread between the fins. Not only will this new CPU toast your data, but your breakfast too.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  7. ZD editors on vacation by mackman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Leakage, the unintentional dissipation of electricity, among other phenomena, can also inadvertently raise memory consumption." I would have to disagree, unless they're watching Johnny Mnemonic.

  8. Cool, but... by EverDense · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wouldn't Moore's Law have failed by now without AMD competing for market share?

    --
    http://jesus.everdense.com/
    1. Re:Cool, but... by dustinmarc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wouldn't Moore's Law have failed by now without AMD competing for market share?

      I don't think this is because of AMD. I would attribute it more to the fact the Gordon Moore, the creator of Moore's law is a co-founder of Intel and currently the chairman-of-the-board. It's probably more of Intel employees trying to not upset the boss by keeping up with what he obviously feels is the appropriate rate for number of transistors on a chip.

      --


      Microsoft should hire me. I can write code that doesn't work faster than the guys they have doing it now.
  9. Not really. by TCaM · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From all I have read the new AMD fab, like most any other will start out at a given process size, likely 90nm in this case, but will be ramped down so to speak. Do you really think they are buying near a billion dollars worth of equipment that isn't in any way upgradeable? Do you think Intel builds entirely new fabs for each new process and just takes the wrecking ball to the old ones?

    Also given that intel still isn't shipping any quantity or anything at 90nm I take the 65nm claims with a grain* of salt.

    *the process size of said grain may vary

  10. Re:Ouch! by WinterSolstice · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So?

    The plant in Dresden will actually work, producing actual chips. This bit from Intel is just vapor at this point.

    Besides, Intel will have to re-tool, debug, and market anyway. It's not like AMD will be any different.

    -WS

    --
    An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
  11. Remember kiddies... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For the most part, clock speed != performance.

    Yes it goes to a large part of it within the same processor family, but it doesn't scale at 1:1.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  12. Translation: by raehl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "You can make a 80% to 100% price increase without any further improvements."

    --
    paintball
  13. A virtual certainty by Alomex · · Score: 2, Insightful


    The superconductor industry has detailed plans which are known set several years in advance.

    If 65nm technology is possible, actual design specs have already been approved and work has already started on the design of a fab facility. So there is no speculation in the report.

  14. Questions. by Veramocor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1. Approximately how many silicon atoms in a nanometer?

    2. Whats the likely minimum amount of atoms that you need for a transister. Would switching materials effect that limit?

    Given these two it should be easy to predict the smallest transitor size, and thus when moores law has to end.

    --
    Veramocor
  15. Haven't we been here before? .90 blues... by Chordonblue · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Isn't that close to what they said about moving to .90? That, uh, didn't happen. The Prescott is coming in at over 100 watts - CASES will need to be redesigned to handle the heat output.

    Intel bet their farm on being able to ramp up clock speed as opposed to making a more efficient chip (ala Opteron) and they're finding it harder to keep up. Take a look at the efficency of even a Pentium M at 1.3 GHz and you'll see why this is important - at least from a technical standpoint.

    But I guess if you're whole marketing plan is based upon clock cycles, .65 *might* be important. All I know is .90 really didn't solve this problem for them to the extent .13 did over .18.

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
  16. Guess what Intel, I don't want it by BlueCoder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm sure as hell not going to buy one. The heat issue makes me nervous, but electricity costs money. Am I going to have to call up an electriction to install a dedicated 240 volt circuit just to run a computer? I don't think so. I just don't need it that bad.

    Do not make the cores any more complicated, just shrink them and run then at a lower voltage. Not put 8 to 16 cores spaced out in one package. Same power consumption, more computational power. And since you don't need to run the chips at higher voltage and frequencies, you get more yield for those extra cores.

    And BTW, this is way too soon for 65 nm. I just don't believe it. Maybe by late 2006.

    BTW, on your next chip set, please kill the floppy controller and just rely on the BIOS to use a USB floppy drive if someone really needs it. On my next system I'm not even going to bother putting a floppy drive in it and instead rely on flash memory. You might as well kill the serial, parallel, and PS/2 ports in the chipset and similarly rely on them connected through USB. If someone really needs the real deal then they can install a PCI card for such lagacy support. But be sure to include 1394 support just so USB isn't overly relied upon and there is an alternative.