Slashdot Mirror


Intel To Make A Greener Microprocessor

crem_d_genes writes "According to the San Jose Mercury News, Intel is planning microprocessors that have a reduced amount of lead in them (reportedly 95% lower). It's about time a company started this - good job - and let's hope other tech companies take the hint. While many places in the US have banned the disposal of computer parts, there have been unintended consequences of the eco-friendly laws. Many 'recycled' computers currently get shipped overseas where parts eventually make their ways into the hands of workers who usually 'burn' the parts to get rid of plastic and recover small amounts of valuable metals. In the process they are exposed to the toxic compounds that are released. In other cases, lead makes its way into drinking water."

7 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. question by weekendwarrior1980 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why does x86 processors consume so much power? What is it about other processors like powerpc and transmeta that makes it more energy friendly?

    1. Re:question by ciroknight · · Score: 5, Interesting

      AMD may be using numbers like 2300+ to describe the speed, but in the end, when a person goes to their local Walmart, or Dell.com, or whereever they go to buy their next PC, they're only going to look as far as "hmm, 2300+ is bigger than 2200+". They're not even going to know what the actual speed difference is, because they don't care to know, just as long as what they're getting is faster. GHz IMO is at least a little more honest when it comes to Intel Processors because the IPC (instructions per clock) shouldnt change all that much from a 2.0GHz CPU to a 2.2 GHz CPU, whereas the instructions per clock on a 2600+ CPU can be drastically different from that of a 2700+ (in fact, it can be a whole different core). Also true for the Pentium 4's as well. Damn, we just need a standard... someone, anyone, PLEASE!?

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
  2. Lead is the least of our worries by pdxdada · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It really is. On many levels modern chip production is horrendously bad for the environment. It's a little known fact but pure silicon doesn't exist naturally on earth, it's a multistep process with some really nasty chemicals to produce it. Lithography is again a multistep process with some truly nasty chemical waste including some strong acids. The machines used to "dope" silicon to produce p/n junctions are often sold off cheep to hobbiests because of the large costs associated with cleaning and recycling them. If you find one don't take it, often they explode if opened. Then let's not forget that the next gen P4 is slotted to run, at what, 150 watts?

    Oh, but wait, atleast now there'll be a quarter gram less lead in my computer.

    Most people have all the computing power they need. It's time more people worry less about clock speed and more about their electric bills and what happens to all those chemicals after Intel's done with them. Cheers.

    --
    Don't mess with the bunny, outsideworld.org
  3. It's just PR by RockyMountain · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The announcement is just PR!

    I'm not denying that the lead reduction is real. It is real.

    But this isn't anything unique to Intel, and it isn't done out of the goodness of their green little hearts.

    Every IC manufacturer, in fact practically every manufacturer of anything electronic, is already investigating lead reduction or elimination at some level or other. Not all are making a public hoopla about it, though.

    Lead free solder requires the development of new alloys and new processes. The changeover isn't trivial, but some promissing candidates exist. Typically they have very high tin content, plus some mix of Silver, Copper, and Antimony.

    There are several reasons for this trend: Regulatory changes (pending in the US, and I think already passed in Europe?), Liability/Insurance cost (employee lawsuits), and waste treatment cost, including waste water.

    My opinion: I don't beleive lead in electronics will ever be totally eliminated, nor outright outlawed. I'm no solder/process expert, but those I know tell me that leadless soldering presents many challenges. More likely in my opinion, regulations will take the form of taxes and fees on lead content, driving manufacturers to use it only where no good alternative exists.

  4. Eutectic alloys vs pure tin by haggar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Many have already written that the lead is in the glass of the CRT. If I'm not mistaken, lead is added to glass to improve it's clarity.

    However, the lead in the soldering alloy is significant, too: the so-called "eutectic" alloy contains 37 to 40 % lead and the rest is tin (Sn).
    Eutectic alloys have a lower melting point than any of it's components. That's exactly the reason why lead is added to tin, in soldering alloys.
    Another very efficient dopant is silver - it decreases considerably the melting point. Unfortunately, it's expensive.

    Tin is basicly innocuous, while lead is toxic. The problem with lead is that it causes a chronic poisoning called saturnism, where your brain suffers considerable damage - in fact, largely unrecoverable.
    I should add here that there are historians that think one reason for the fall of the roman empire lies in the use of lead cups for drinking wine. These lead cups were quite popular in the roman army, and it's not inconceivable that this might have decreased the soldier's mental and physical abilities.

    The problem with the lead-free soldering technologies is exactly the higher melting temperature of pure tin compared to the eutectic alloys. Reflow and other technologies have to be fine-tuned for higher temperatures, and the risk of damaging some of the components is significantly higher. I, for one, prefere much more to use normal, eutectic alloy for my hobby work.

    --
    Sigged!
  5. Re:Green friendly? by sfe_software · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Quite the contrary. AMD has introduced the X+ rating for that reason. The problem is totally self-made. They've developed a design which has a better performance (Banias/Dothan...) at even lower clock speed. Now they have a problem to place that chip against its own products.

    To clarify (and make sure I'm understanding correctly), Intel's "more MHz/GHz is better" marketing approach is presenting a problem to even themselves, much like it did for AMD a couple of years ago. Now that Intel is making more effecient (work done per-clock) processors, like AMD has been doing, simply comparing MHz among even just Intel processors is no longer a good performance measure, and might even make their new line appear slower (again, when comparing only clock-speed numbers).

    It sounds like they're taking a step back from the P4 design, which were slower clock for clock than even their older (PIII) processors, but capable of higher clock speeds; so at the time the MHz myth worked to their advantage, where now it is no longer to their advantage.

    That, and the market (in my opinion) isn't as speed-hungry as it was just a year ago. A quieter, smaller, more energy-efficient PC design is more likely to make the average user upgrade than a faster, beefier PC. Computers are "fast enough" for most people's needs (most of the time even for myself, a programmer and FPS game player).

    --
    NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
  6. It's happeneing elsewhere too by __david__ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Coincidentally, just this week a Japanese customer of ours asked us to modify our firmware on our embedded device to support a different flash chip because the only one we currently support uses lead. We happily oblidged. So Intel definitely isn't the only company out there trying to be more "green".

    -David