Intel, IBM Announce Chip Breakthrough

Intel announced a major breakthrough in microprocessor design Friday that will allow it to keep on the curve of Moore's Law a while longer. IBM, working with AMD, rushed out a press release announcing essentially equivalent advances. Both companies said they will be using alloys of hafnium as insulating layers, replacing the silicon dioxide that has been used for more than 40 years. The New York Times story (and coverage from the AP and others) features he-said, she-said commentary from dueling analysts. If there is a consensus, it's that Intel is 6 or more months ahead for the next generation. IBM vigorously disputes this, saying that they and AMD are simply working in a different part of the processor market — concentrating on the high-end server space, as opposed to the portable, low-power end.

Comments

Two breakthroughs in one day?

[zero-one]

With this breakthrough and that other one perhaps Moore's Law needs updating.

Not news

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

Sorry but why is this being reported again now? We already knew Intel and IBM had achieved a 45nm process and that it would be coming to mass-market chips in 2007-08. It's 2007 and it's here. Hooray and all that, but is a company following through on its claims really so shocking that it constitutes being reported again... twice?

Re:Not news

[unc0nn3ct3d]

pretty sure this article was more about the switch to Hafnium as an insulator as apposed to the 45nm technology. Also the fact that they are using a new silicon substrate over the existing standard...

Re:Not news

[Bender_]

That is not true. There will be a number of companies doing 45nm without high-k and metal gates.

RFI? Electromigration?

[caitriona81]

But how much further will that get them before RFI makes it a moot point? At that small of a pathway, I'd think that random radio signals and electrical noise would be disastrous.
Also, how well does this survive long term? Is it resistant to electromigration over time?
All great to hear, but I'm not sure how long this will let them keep pace with Moore's law, at best it buys a couple more years of progress on current processor designs I guess.

Re:RFI? Electromigration?

[stevesliva]

The shuttle internal systems run on obselete crap.

Obselete, incredibly reliable, utterly adequate rock-solid gold. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Launching enormous rockets with software control is possible to screw up. Given the choice, I'd rather fly with the proven computers.

Re:RFI? Electromigration?

[mrhartwig]

The shuttle used hand woven magnetic core memory until 1990.

Yep. Stable, information-retaining (unfortunately, it even retains info after immersion in seawater), and basically immune to cosmic ray disruptions. Which doesn't require a lot of error-correction circuitry.... Not terribly data-dense or fast compared to semiconductor (part of the reason to replace it, after all) but it works.

It was designed in the 60s...

Actually, the computers themselves were designed the 70s, with updates in the 80s; core memory (I don't think you meant that) was actually from the 40s & 50s, with significant updates afterwards. You know, of course, that it took years of system integration testing after the new HW was finished before the new semi-conductor memory (along with the upgraded CPUs, etc.) were flown? Some silly idea NASA has about trying to make sure stuff that keeps people alive isn't broken in any way. ...the only reason it wasn't decomissioned 3 decades ago....

Right. If it flew in 90 (might have actually been 1991 iirc, but maybe not) it's still only been flying for 17 years. How do you decommission something 13 years before it first flew?

Just because something's old doesn't mean it's not useful. There are also cost/benefit factors in replacement; in this case (probably; I don't pretend to know all of the reasons) external requirements that have nothing to do with HW (like testing regulations) greatly increase the cost of replacement. Plus, you have the whole anytime-you-change-you-increase-risk problem; there's a reason that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is an adage.

Axiom?

[rumith]

The Intel announcement is new evidence that the chip maker is maintaining the pace of Moore's Law, the technology axiom

I thought it's an empiric law; the definition of axiom is quite different from that.

Intel said it had already manufactured prototype microprocessor chips in the new 45-nanometer process that run on three major operating systems: Windows, Mac OS X and Linux.

Again, I thought it's the operating systems who run on microprocessors, not vice-versa. And I [not being a kernel developer, though] can't see any reason for an OS to stop functioning on a new processor model if the architecture is intact and no serious hardware-level bugs are introduced.

Whaa?

[Godji]

If there is a consensus, it's that Intel is 6 or more months ahead for the next generation. IBM vigorously disputes this, saying that they and AMD are simply working in a different part of the processor market

Didn't read TFA, but is it possible to have a consensus with one party vigorously disputing it?

Re:Whaa?

[UltraAyla]

It would seem to be consensus of the analysts, but who knows how accurate that is if one company is disputing the information leading to the consensus.

Re:How long for this to reach laptops?

[DrSkwid]

never buy anything