IBM Demonstrates High-k/Metal Gate Chips

Last summer we discussed twin announcements from Intel and IBM/AMD about a new chip manufacturing technology dubbed high-k/metal gate. Intel is using the tech to improve speed and power consumption in its 45-nm chips. IBM, along with its manufacturing partners, just demonstrated chips it says show that high-k/metal gate technology at 32 nm can result in performance gains up to 30% and power savings up to 50%, compared to 45-nm process. IBM plans to be manufacturing 32 nm parts by the end of 2009. (AMD is not using high-k/metal gate yet, but it has access to the technology by virtue of its agreements with IBM.)

Comments

Re:I hope AMD uses this technology

[OrangeTide]

Why would a large international company need your loyalty? You should buy whatever has a good price and good quality. Although you can argue that once AMD is no longer a mainstream processor vendor that Intel will raise their prices.

Yeah...

[jd]

But Germanium-Arsonide is a much-neglected technology that could do with more investment, as it should do much better than silicon. Graphene is another technology that risks being ignored for as long as silicon is a viable option. I'd far prefer chip companies to be pushing the boundaries with materials that should offer far more extreme performance. Nonetheless, any progress is good progress.

Re:I hope AMD uses this technology

[Chris Burke]

The moral behaviour of the company making the product is to be taken into account, at least it is in my case.

Some will say that I am acting against how the market is supposed to work, that is not true.

Well if you listen to the die-hard capitalists (in particular the Randian strain of Libertarian), then basing purchasing decisions on the moral behavior of the company is your only valid way of preventing them from screwing you seven ways till sunday. Because any actual law that prohibited such immoral behavior would be at least as immoral as the behavior itself.

And not so die-hard capitalists will also agree that not buying a company's products because of their behavior is a valid way to punish them, even if there are laws that also prohibit such behavior.

Pretty much the only people who will say you are acting against how the market is supposed to work are die-hard sociopaths who don't care that some behavior is "immoral", and want you to keep lining their pockets regardless of what evil things they do in the name of making a buck, and the argument is solely a way of tricking you into ignoring your own moral outrage.

Re:I hope AMD uses this technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Well...if you just need a good reason to continue supporting AMD, here's one:

The fastest FSB on any Intel laptop chip today is 800MHz. The Slowest (and ONLY) FSB on any AMD chip today is 1600MHz, or 1.6GHz. This means that even if an intel chip can process data 60% faster (and currently even their best chip is only 40% faster than AMD's worst chip and even with a biased, paid for test. A real test of a comperable AMD lends about a 5% greater speed with a 2% margin of error.) the Intel system can still only get data in and out of the processor at 50% of the speed of it's AMD counterpart. What does this mean?

It means if you're trying to do a little processing to a lot of data (i.e. watch a movie, manage a database, etc) the AMD will vastly outperform the Intel. If you're trying to do something which has to do a LOT of processing to just a LITTLE data (video editing if you have no good GPU, or playing a game with amazing graphics and a small field of view so that it doesn't process much at once) then the Intel will beat the AMD. Strangely enough, this typically means that Intels run games like Crysis better than an AMD, and yet if you use bittorrent and you have at least an 8MBit connection, not using an AMD means you had better dedicate the system to nothing but bittorrent - trying to multitask when you're trying to write half a meg a second on an Intel will make you want to blow your brains all over your keyboard.

The truth is both have advantages and disadvantages and at the end of the day, neither does everything perfectly. I know many people who still keep a desktop around just as a gaming rig because the heat problems (and price point) for a gaming laptop is too high. Personally, I have an HP dv9420us and an ASUS EEE. I would never play anything beyond MAYBE Red Alert 2 on the EEE, and if I turn the settings on CNC3 above "Very Low" it will grind to a halt (well...3 FPS is more or less a halt.) But that's not the AMD in it - it's the damn GeForce 6150 Go. If it had an 8 series, only then would it be the AMD. Right now, I have Microtorrent, Pidgin, Firefox, WMP (still haven't gotten around to moving to Winamp), LimeWire Pro, and 78 other processes running. My hard drive write is now averaging over 1.2 Megabytes a sec. Any noticable slowdown from just Firefox? Nope. On an Intel, I couldn't say that, but I could probably run CNC3 at "Medium" and still maintain 30FPS, which though low, would suit me just fine. My point is that computers are still totally purpose-built. There is no all-in-wonder. Until a computer can flip a switch and go from a 2.8GHz quad core with 8GB of memory and 1 hour of battery life to a 1GHz low voltage CPU with 1GB of memory and 7 hours of battery life then people will always have to just buy two systems.

So I suppose my point is just that you have good reasons to continue to buy AMD. AMD's processors are slightly behind the curve and they recently laid off 10% of their workforce but people don't quit buying ford trucks just because they close down one plant and add GPS capability a year after everyone else. If a ford truck still outpulls a chevy then people keep buying fords regardless, and if an AMD ships with a faster FSB then most often an AMD will outpace an intel in everyday use several times over. If you really must have your GPS or play Crysis then go with a chevy or an intel.

All that said, with AMD's aquisition of ATI a while back I expect them to announce CPU's that can do many of the functions of their GPU's pretty soon. I just bought an HTC x7501 that has an ATI graphics coprocessor. And it's little more than a cell phone. The sole thing that sold me on my old Nintendo Gamecube was the ATI sticker on the box. ATI is to graphics what Intel is to processors - they both specialize on desktops but dabble in all manner of other arenas. I have seldom seen any game on an orginal XBOX look half as nice as any game on a Gamecube. Hell, even Pikmin had better looking effects than Ghost Recon, and I love Ghost Recon and hated Pi

Re:I hope AMD uses this technology

[Trogre]

I would like to go one step further and claim that in this corrupt age, the only way to vote with any effect on your rulers whatsoever is not with a ballot box, but with your wallet.

IMHO, that's the secret, chaps. Power's all in your wallet. Use it wisely.

Re:Take a look at the literature

[Kjella]

True, it's not ready now, but research and development budgets are finite and therefore the more that is spent on silicon, the less you can spend on graphene and the longer it will take for graphene VLSI to be a practical day-to-day thing. My big concern is that, as is the case with nuclear fusion, the amount spent will be too small in comparison to the amount required to produce useful (in the marketplace) results. That assumes graphene will overtake silicon, as if that's a certainty. Silicon has scaled extremely well now for 30 years and all the people thinking "this has got to stop soon" have been proven wrong time and time again. If the silicon improvements bottom out, one also has to ask how much more is there to gain? Are the the same fundamental limits going to hit graphene? You got to ask when they're showing 300-atom (32nm) thick layers now with plans for going near 100 atoms. Can it really be packed that much tighter? Can it really operate at a higher frequency without using more power as power/watt is very important? All I'm saying is that it's no point making massive investments into something that may turn out worse or even or just slightly better than silicon.

Actually I think your fusion power is a great example, it's not for lack of research as there's been many years to let it mature, there's been oil crisises that have really boosted interest in alternative power and if you've paid any attention to the oil prices and the possibility of "peak oil" which has delivered funding. Fusion is a great idea that just isn't partical, it's like five year-olds with tons of energy but it's impossible to make them do any real work. Theoretically better is great, in theory. But while I don't want companies to try to turn the clock back, being so far ahead of the technology that it's not actually usable isn't a good thing either.