Intel Makes 45nm Chip

dolphinlover writes "Intel announced today that it created its first microchip using the 45 nanometer manufacturing process that it says will go into its processors in the second half of 2007. Intel said that this development provides it with a 'considerable lead over our competitors in the 45-nanometer generation'."

Comments

Says You

[ackthpt]

Intel said that this development provides it with a 'considerable lead over our competitors in the 45-nanometer generation'."

Which means, what?

Predicitons for the next 18 months:

• Intel announces sucessful 45nm chip test, announces planned production for late 2007
• In mid-2006 AMD announces they have been quietly busy and production of 45nm chips to begin in 4th quarter.
• In November AMD is shipping quad core 45nm chips.
• Intel board scramble all resources to get chips out (even if at a trickle) ASAP, just get some damn thing out there, NOW!
• From hardware sites AMD chips receive rave reviews, slaying all competition and making overclockers wet their pants with joy.
• First Intel chips are tested and found to contain scarcely updated processors which still don't talk to each other very fast, run slow and, once again, are clocked so high you need a big fan and heat sink.
• Dell announce they are so pleased with Intel they're not going to use AMD chips (at all/any more.)
• In subsequent months Intel make improvements, now that they have a market presence, but watch their market share drop to 70% or lower.

i think it's somehow related to moore's law

Re:Says You

[level_headed_midwest]

I heard that AMD will be shipping their first 65nm products in late 2006 and have heard nothing about 45nm production.

Re:Says You

[georgewilliamherbert]

Unlike other fields, production ramps in semiconductor manufacturing are pretty easy to spot... the amount of new machinery and construction associated with a new process being deployed to a facility are hard to hide, and it's all over the trade press 18 months before stuff starts shipping typically.

AMD has traditionally been behind Intel on the bleeding edge fab stuff. Intel's dominated the fab tech race by six months or so for years and years. That is not changing here, as far as anyone I know of can see. AMD using SOI sort of blurs the line here, but in terms of process shrinks and the like Intel's ahead.

AMD's chips being better performers despite being behind some in chip fab is an important feature. But roadmaps based on imaginary pixie dust, in an industry where fabs cost $4 billion or so, are a waste of time even on slashdot.

Re:Says You

[the eric conspiracy]

AMD has a co-development agreement with IBM and is planning to introduce 45nm parts in 2008.

Re:Says You

[uujjj]

AMD is nearly a full year behind Intel rolling out 65nm. Intel began volume production at 65nm last summer; AMD will be ramping up in the middle of this year.

While the parent may be joking, down below you'll find a lot of posts from AMD fanboys insisting that AMD must somehow be ahead. These fanboys are as clueless as the average tech magazine reporter. You can be quite certain that AMD will not be ramping up 45nm before Intel.

Re:Says You

[georgewilliamherbert]

Silicon On Insulator; see the silicon on insulator wikipedia entry for a high level summary, or google the phrase for more details.

Basically, instead of a solid slab of silicon on which you fab chip components, you put a solid slab of an insulator (sapphire / alumina for example; see silicon on sapphire wikipedia entry) down and then an insulating silicon oxide layer, and then a thin layer of silicon on which you fab the parts. Since what's under the parts is insulator, rather than more semiconductor, it reduces the energy of switching and reduces the time to switch a transistor. Also reduces radiation effects on the semiconductor and other good stuff.

Jobs's strategy?

[vijayiyer]

Perhaps this what Steve Jobs referred to when he talked about the efficiency of future chips in Intel's roadmap?

Why do they always screw up Moores Law

[rminsk]

The new chip makes good on Moore's Law, an industry maxim set forth by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore that stipulates the number of transistors on a chip -- and therefore its processing power -- doubles roughly every 18 months to two years.

Who added the "and therefore its processing power" to the quote? Was it the reporter or someone from Intel? Moores law has nothing to do with processing power.

Aren't we getting close to the Theoretical Limit?

[Anna Merikin]

Unless I misplaced a decimal point or misunderstand physics, isn't 45 nm only a very few generations from needing connections only one molecule thick?

Re:I must need glasses

[msauve]

When I first read the headline I thought it said a 45mm chip, which is considerably less impressive.

Not really. Creating a >2000 mm^2 chip without any flaws, with the expectation of being able to eventually make a profit on them in the consumer market, would be quite an accomplishment. Such a large die area would not only result in low yields, but present serious obstacles in power consumption and heat dissipation.

For comparison, the Pentium IV 600 series has a 135 mm^2 die area. If I'm not mistaken, yields fall exponentially, so no only would they be able to produce only 6% as many chips on a wafer, but could also expect a greatly lower number of working ones from the total.

Re:What about AMDs 45nm???

[taskforce]

I think you'll find that it was 65nm which AMD were readying for production, which Intel have been using since last year. Yet AMD Desktop cores at 90nm with SOI still manage to outperform, underconsume power, and underemmit heat compared to their counterparts.

It just goes to show that design does play a part in making a chip, and not trying to cram as many transistors as one can onto a die.

CNET News article has important additional details

[MojoStan]

Here's a link to CNET News's article on this same news:

Intel shows test chips made on future processes

One interesting (to me) bit of info from the CNET News article:

The 45-nanometer process could become particularly interesting because many chip designers believe it will be one of the more difficult transitions in years. The power consumption and performance requirements of these chips will be extremely high and chipmakers are being forced to add exotic materials and new structures to their transistors to ensure the chips function properly...

"It does get a little more challenging every time, but we come up with new technology and tricks to keep things going," said Bohr.

If a company botches the process, it could lead to product delays or recalls. Some chipmakers faced these problems during the transition to 130-nanometer chips when they swapped aluminum for copper for making interconnects--the tiny wires inside chips.

Although Intel might have a "considerable lead over our competitors in the 45-nanometer generation," it doesn't appear that this transition is expected to go as smoothly as their transtion to 65nm (which seems very smooth). Remember Intel's and IBM's difficult transitions to 90nm.

Re:What about AMDs 45nm???

[TheRaven64]

Wow, the AMD fanboys are out in force tonight. From this source, which is three months old and so relatively recent:

• AMD's new fab, Fab 36, supports 300mm wafers (like Intels have for some time).
• It uses a 90nm process (Intel and IBM have been on 65nm for some time).
• It will transition to 65nm by the end of 2006.
• It will use 45nm and 32nm processes by the end of the decade.

It doesn't really sound like Intel is playing catch-up here.

Re:Aren't we getting close to the Theoretical Limi

[uujjj]

molecule? This is a crystal we are talking about, so the entire wafer is a "molecule". An atom of Si is about .3nm across.

Can't say I'm surprised...

[themysteryman73]

I can't say this is surprising news, there's been talk of 45nm chips for a while now, so I suppose the time has finally come when someone makes one. At the same time, it's still early tech so what are we supposed to do with this news?
"Hey, Intel's making 45nm chips!"
"Yum, what flavour?"
"Er... Internets?"

Seriously though, I know this is a step forward, but someone tell me when either vendor starts actual production on these chips

Doing the hard work

[ranton]

It seams to make sense that because Intel has the most money, that they can spend money on developing better manufacturing and engineering techniques than their competition. But with all of this extra money, and seamingly having better technological capabilities, AMD is still beating out Intel as far as performance.

Looks like Intel basically does all of the hard work figuring out how to do things for the first time, and AMD just has to wait until Intel is finished and then just learn from them. I of course know nothing about how to make processors, but it seams that this is the most plausible reason why Intel has trouble making chips that are as good as AMD.

This news about the 45nm manufacturing looks very bad for AMD, but I doubt it will matter very much. If Intel is doing it by the end of 2007, AMD will probably be doing it by first or second quarter 2008. And if history is any indicator, they will probably be doing it better. But I guess time will tell, maybe this 45nm technique really is too hard for a company without endless money to figure out.
--

Re:Doing the hard work

[Deliveranc3]

You're close but the biggest element is that AMD liscences a lot of their tech while Intel develops it.

AMD is part of a consortium of chip manufacturers (with SUN and IBM) who cross liscence to each other, everything from instruction sets to hypertransport, to NRAM, to SOI.

Intel probably has about the same number of people developing tech but they are trying to do their development in a very corperate way - This is what we need let's do it.

As opposed to AMD who can be a lot closer to pure science because they just liscence any tech that seems cool or is proven.

When we see crazy stuff on slashdot like the four gigabit optical memory or the 2 Gigahz CPU AMD is probably looking into that stuff while Intel research is most likely pretending it doesn't exist.

Speaking of Theoretical Limits...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Scott. To put it another way -- how big would one of your gates have to be, with a 300 mm wafer, to resolve properly using your current method of lithography?

Intel Exec. That's easy. Six molecules. We have stuff that big in stock.

Mr. Scott. Well, suppose I could show you a way to build a gate that could do the same job -- but be only one molecule thick. Would that be worth somethin' to ye?

Intel Exec. You must be joking.

Dr. McCoy. Perhaps the professor could use your computer...

[Later]

Dr. McCoy. [Whispering] You realize that by giving him the formula we're altering the future.

Mr. Scott. How do we know he didn't invent the thing?

Dr. McCoy. [Smiling] Yeah.

Ok, can we just put more empty space in now?

[fwitness]

Seriously? Can't I have a chip that runs relatively fast, does everything a modern computer is used for, sans games, and I *don't* have to water-cool? Something like what the VIA Epia series does, but with Intel's backing?

Is it just me, or is web-browsing and document writing fast enough? It seems like 99% of the time these days I just want something smaller and quieter. If I want pretty shiny games, I'll play them on my xbox390 or sumsuch. Sure you can make bunches of chips for gamers, but give me a slimline chip and I, like many others would flock to it.

I'm writing this on my 733Mhz laptop, bought for college way back when, and my typing fingers really don't recognize the lack of dual cores.

Big Stinkin' Deal!

[joetheappleguy]

I made a 45nm chip meself, but I sneezed and I haven't been able to find it since.