Slashdot Mirror
Intel Ramps Up 45nm Chip Production, Announces 'Atom' Line
Multiple readers have written to tell us of the latest developments out of Intel. Earlier this week, Intel announced the Atom brand of low cost, low power consumption processors. The CPUs, measuring only 25 square millimeters, are the result of the Silverthorne and Diamondville projects. The announcement has caused this CNet columnist to question whether Intel can "spur innovation in ultrasmall devices the way it has in the PC and server industry." Concurrently, Intel has increased its production of 45nm processors to a rate of roughly 100,000 chips per day. As TG Daily notes, the massive investments Intel has made into chip production will make it difficult for AMD to catch up.
This isn't a new market, it's a well established one. Intel already has serious competition in this market, as evidenced in the article:
The Atom architecture is intended to give Intel a foothold in handheld devices that have traditionally been the sole domain of very low-power RISC processors.
I'm not sure that anyone really cares about what the instruction set for a handheld device is, since the operating systems for handheld devices has been relatively chip-agnostic.
AccountKiller
This reminds me of an economics lecture I attended once, which dealt with the topic of government subsidies. In general, the professor was extremely against subsidies, since they pervert free market dynamics and generally leads to lower overall efficiency, higher prices, etc. However, the one situation where he supported them was for industries where the cost of doing business is so high that the world market can only support a monopoly. In that case, he argued that subsidies were vital in that they enable the existence of two entities in a given space, thus creating competition and spurring innovation.
His main example was the commercial aviation industry, where the two big players are Boeing and Airbus. According to him, without large subsidies from the U.S. and E.U., one of those two would "win" and the other would cease to exist, leaving us with a single global manufacturer of commercial airplanes. I wonder if this argument now applies to Intel?
If Atom is cheaper than the AMD's lowest offering, then yes, they should feel threatened. We've reached a point where even the most basic processor has more power than the common person needs. Combine that with the mindless eco-babble that has tainted every aspect of North American life in the last few years, and you've got a market that's perfect for a power-miser medium-performance processor that will be at the heart of numerous little PC-like gadgets.
Via's line doesn't get much traction outside of the tinkerer circles, because they're still tied to clumsy legacy chipsets and the costs are ridiculous, considering their extremely limited performance. If Intel can release a slightly better processor for less money, that can be paired with an inexpensive chipset and tiny power supply, they could take a bite out of the microcontroller segment and ARM's small but tenacious market share.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Being conscious of our environment is a good thing. Throwing around random buzzwords is not.
I'm all for conserving energy, and I abuse my Kill-A-Watt meter on a daily basis. What irritates me, and this also applies to health fads, is the use of pseudo-science in marketing. Gadgets are being branded as "low power" when they were never high power in the first place, and sold at a premium. Other things are remade into low power variants, sold at a premium but consume more power during fabrication than the savings incurred by the user.
Let's face it: it's common sense that using less of a limited resource will result in that resource lasting longer and/or serving more people. The fact that this conservation fad has become a daily brainwash is no accident. Just like the health food fads of the 90's, it is now profitable to market "green" products, thanks to some very lax regulations on advertising. Whether these products actually result in net savings is dubious, but they do result in net profits for the manufacturers.
-Billco, Fnarg.com