Slashdot Mirror
Intel Discusses Future Plans
heeeraldo writes "Tom's Hardware (unfortunately known for their one-page-stretched-into-nine articles, and endless ads) attended an Intel presentation about their future processor plans. The unsurprising bit: the endless march of additional cores. The surprising part: they're already focusing on 45nm processes." From the article: "Last week, Intel held a series of presentations at its Ronler Acres campus in Hillsboro, Oregon, whose facilities represent the main pillar of product design and manufacturing. These presentations included a short tour to the top-notch 65 nm production facility Fab D1D whose specifics Intel is currently replicating to other locations. The primary purpose of this show obviously was to convince around 80 analysts and journalists of the substantial health of Intel's 65 nm fabrication leadership, which is outputting new processors in high volume for launching new Pentium 4 6x1, Pentium D 900 and Core branded (known as Yonah) processors in early 2006."
The article is full of problems. Whitefield was canceled a couple of months ago:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27192
There is a lot wrong with the 45nm code names, and in general, it is lacking a lot of info.
If Intel gave him this info, it is blurring the lines for PR purposes, and somewhat flat out wrong. As of Friday, Whitefield was still dead, and the roadmap didn't match up with Intel's internal ones.
There is a bit of right there, but few if anything that can't be found at the usual places.
-Charlie
AMD has significant leads in both manunfacturing technology and cpu design. The specific AMD technology leads over Intel right now are their dual-stress liner technology, SOI, their use of hypertransport, and their implementation of the on-die memory controller. These are the areas that AMD has a 1-2 year lead in. The newest AMD Fab was built for 65 nm and can later move to 45 nm. AMD leads in other areas have allowed them to place less reliance on clock speed increases and process shrinks to achieve performance goals, in contrast to Intel for which clock speed and process shrink seem to be its primary performance tools. Clock speed topped out for Intel so now they have only process shrinks left. There is a lower limit on process shrinks as well due to physical limits so Intel is probably also scrambling desperately to catch up in the areas where AMD has surpassed them. Unfortunately for Intel, there are likely to be no quick paths to implementing the things that AMD has spent years developing.