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.

Comments

Laughably high power consumption for handheld

[pslam]

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. The chip itself is tiny at less than 25mm square, and, according to Santa Clara, has a TDP of 0.6W - 2.5W, as compared to a 35W TDP for a "typical" Core 2 Duo.

Sigh. They do this every year or two - Intel announces a new core that will get them into more handhelds. They're still an order of magnitude short. Typical "very low-power RISC processors" you see in a device such as a mobile phone or MP3/video player are more like 0.01W - 0.25W, or even less. They're way more efficient clock-for-clock (and MIP-for-MIP) than any x86 core Intel has ever churned out.

Unless they have a funny definition of hand-held device we don't normally use, of course.

Re:Laughably high power consumption for handheld

[CajunArson]

These chips aren't designed to go into cellphones, and Intel frankly says they are not going into cellphones. They are instead designed for MIDs that will predominantly run Linux. Think of these things as smaller & lighter than your notebook with customized interfaces (not just mini-desktops) that are also easier to use than cellphones for accessing the Internet. Considering that Atom chips are roughly equivalent in processing power to first-gen Centrino chips, these devices should be extremely capable with the right software. The next generation of Atom at 32nm will have the proper power envelope to run your cellphone BTW.

Re:Laughably high power consumption for handheld

[pslam]

These chips aren't designed to go into cellphones, and Intel frankly says they are not going into cellphones. They are instead designed for MIDs that will predominantly run Linux.

That's funny, because according to the link, MIDs are a class of hand-held device invented by Intel. So I'm right - they have a different definition of hand-held to everyone else.

The next generation of Atom at 32nm will have the proper power envelope to run your cellphone BTW.

They will be 10 times more power efficient than their 45nm version? Extremely unlikely. Also consider that the real lower power processor market isn't standing still either - they're managing about a 25%-50% power efficiency improvement per year. Also consider that the current high-end low-power CPUs you find in mobiles are comparable in performance to the first-Gen Centrino chips.

The kind of "hand-held" devices Intel are talking about have big batteries and are held with two hands. 1 Watt is not a lower power device in this market. The real hand-held device chip market measures their power in milliwatts not watts. They idle at a single milliwatt and average a 20-50mW in use. Intel is still running orders of magnitude higher than that.

Re:Laughably high power consumption for handheld

[pslam]

I was under the impression that most of these had extremely lousy performance, and relied on dedicated decoding chips specificly designed for the task they do.

It's a common impression but it's wrong. For example, most of the CPUs you find powering MP3 players do decoding entirely in software. Even many CPUs powering hand-held video players do decoding entirely in software, but to be honest you'll find most of the high-end video players use hardware decode because a) it's faster and b) it's more power efficient.

The performance of the CPUs you find in a most high-end hand-held devices these days is surprisingly good. Well, it's surprising to people who haven't worked in the field, at least. We're constantly somewhat annoyed that the rest of the world hasn't worked it out yet. A high end ARM11 (common in high-end mobile phones) is actually quite competitive to the performance of a Via C3, for example.

Re:Laughably high power consumption for handheld

[bhima]

From Linux Devices: http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS5492118276.html

ARM vs. Atom

There's much to like about the Intel Atom, writes Williston in EETimes. Yet, he suggests, the media and its readers may have been overwhelmed by the hype machine. Williston offers the following responses to typical arguments from the atomic power lobbyists, at times quoting analysts such as Forward Concepts's Will Strauss to back him up:
Atom will beat ARM because it can run Vista. -- No it can't, says Williston. Atom can run Windows CE and Linux, but ARM can do the same.

Only Atom offers a "real" Internet experience with Flash video, YouTube, etc. -- "Wrong," writes Williston, pointing to ARM Flash players from BSquare, and an ARM-based YouTube decoder from On2. He might also have noted that Nokia's ARM- and Linux-based Internet tablets use a Mozilla-based browser, with plugins for Flash, Windows Media files, and even Microsoft's Flash-like Silverlight technology.

Intel dominates every market it enters. Here, the writer refers the reader to the history books, especially two years ago when Intel sold its PXA line of embedded processors to Marvell after failing to dominate the market for ARM-based SoCs.

Atom will win because ARM is proprietary technology. Nope, he writes. ARM chips are available from a number of semiconductor vendors.

Intel will win on cost. Not likely, he writes. Using a 65nm process, the Cortex-A8 occupies less than 3mm x 3mm, he notes, while the Atom core probably takes up about 9mm x 9mm of Atom's 25mm x 25mm die size, despite its smaller 45nm process. "With such a huge area disadvantage, it's hard to see how Intel will win on cost," he writes.

Intel will win on power. Once again, not likely, he argues. Intel quotes a thermal design power (TDP) of 0.6W to 2W for Atom, he writes, but doesn't specify clock speeds. ARM offers only "typical" power measurements, making comparison difficult. But at best, he suggests, Intel matches ARM on power usage, while "in most scenarios, Atom burns more power."

Intel will win because it has the most advanced fabs. Perhaps, he writes, but who cares? "Consumers focus on cost, power and speed," he writes.

Ultrasmall devices?

[jhoger]

"Ultrasmall" is fine if you don't need a display and keyboard.

I think the utility for these new processors is reducing power consumption on devices that are the same size we normally expect.

Is anybody really satisfied with ~3 hours of battery life on a laptop? Considering this is the 25th anniversary of the Model 100, which sold 6 million units, has 20 hours battery life, lighter than most laptops today and was easier to use, instant-on, off, people should know we can do better.

-- John.

Re:Ultrasmall devices?

[Vellmont]

Is anybody really satisfied with ~3 hours of battery life on a laptop?

Given that laptop sales are at an all-time high, I'd say the answer is "yes". Do people want more? Sure, but they're willing to settle for 3 hours.

Part of them problem is laptops are just an extension of desktops, and desktops are driven by more and more resource usage (and thus more power). I'm sure someone could come out with a laptop with a 12 hour battery life, but:

It'd run modern desktop software slowly.
It'd have a smaller storage space (20 gigs of flash ram?) (this isn't so bad really)
The screen wouldn't be quite as "nice" as the 3 hour laptop. The maker would likely have to compromise on the screen technology to reduce power consumption.

low-power devices like this exist, of course. They're just identified in a different class of device because of the above compromises.

Re:The Ars Performance Judgement

[billcopc]

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.

Re:subsidies anyone?

[theskipper]

An interesting aside wrt AMD. Apparently AMD's license for the x86 instruction set has a massive "catch":

http://www.overclockers.com/tips01276/

what clause 6.2 appears to say is that if AMD gets taken over or goes bankrupt, Intel has the right to end AMD's right to use Intel's patents and copyrights after sixty days notice. This would seem to mean AMD couldn't make x86 processors anymore.

The direct findlaw doc link:
http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/amd/intel.license.2001.01.01.html

So the arms race isn't so cut-and-dry because x86 is so pervasive. Any competitor would likely find themselves in the same situation as AMD because Intel holds the licensing trump card. Imagine being the startup trying to negotiate a fair arrangement under those conditions (i.e. where they could be truly competitive with Intel down the road).

AMD can go fabless

[cyfer2000]

The advantage of AMD is design. AMD has never bested Intel in fabrication. It looks that the design team of AMD has been dragged by its fabrication capability. To solve this problem, AMD can out source the fabrication to companies like TMSC or Chartered Semiconductor.

Cheap internet appliances for the whole world

[rbrander]

Sounds like the new big market is "ultra-mobile" mini-laptops, from those links to "MID" and "UMPC" in the Wikipedia.

My purchase of an Eee PC got me to do up a presentation for the engineers at work,

"Poor Man's Computer: Cheap Internet Appliances for the Whole World"

http://www.cuug.ab.ca/branderr/pmc

on the topic. Short version: as predicted by Dan & Jerry Hutcheson in Scientific American about 1997, the market is turning from "endlessly bigger and faster at the same price point" to "smaller and way cheaper if not as fast". We're taking our "Moore's Law gains" in the form of money rather than than speed, thanks very much.

And this price drop into $300 and $200 laptops (and under in the case of the XO) is colliding with the surge in global population that make $10/day or more in the developing world. Sales in the billions beckon. 100,000 per day? Hah. If they make the right product, they'll have to ramp up to many hundreds of millions per year.

Re:Isaiah

[Unoti]

Cmon, get with the program. The next version of office is going to near a dozen cores just for the ribbon bar alone, plus a handful of cores for the new Clippy.