Slashdot Mirror


IBM Leapfrogs Intel With 22nm Chips

Slatterz writes "Intel may be touting 45nm CPUs, but IBM says it can go much further with a strategy to produce future chips using a 22nm fabrication process. The company is adopting a technique called 'computational scaling' in order to manufacture circuits small enough to deliver more powerful and energy-efficient devices. Intel plans to introduce 32nm chips in 2009, but chipmakers have hit a problem in that current lithographic methods are not adequate for designs as small as 22nm owing to fundamental physical limitations. IBM claims to have solved this problem." Unfortunately the phrase "computational scaling" doesn't actually convey any information about how they've solved it.

44 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. Well duhhhh.... by Rod+Beauvex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I figured out how to do something that would lay a serious hurting on my competition, I wouldn't exactly go around saying how I did it either.

    1. Re:Well duhhhh.... by neonleonb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Patents, dude. That's the reason they're around: so you can tell people how you did it, and still be the only one to do it. Some patents are evil, but I hope *someone* is using the system as it's intended.

    2. Re:Well duhhhh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      IBM and Intel have complete cross-site patent agreements. Anything that IBM patents in the future, Intel already has a license for -- and vice versa. Trade secrets, on the other hand, are legally protected as long as the company with the secret takes adequate steps for it to remain a secret.

    3. Re:Well duhhhh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Patents are mostly useful when you've outrun the competition by a few seconds. As a reward for you get to beat your competition with a stick for 17 years.

      Any *real* breakthrough is better protected by trade secrets. You stay ahead even longer, avoid having to look for infringement, avoid litigation altogether, and prevent cheap knockoffs from countries that don't enforce patents.

    4. Re:Well duhhhh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I remember reading in a business strategy book that at least when it comes to GPUs, companies don't bother to patent much since patenting something requires you to disclose too much and the technology advances so fast that by the time you have your patent, it's obsolete and worthless.

    5. Re:Well duhhhh.... by HungryHobo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well they can still take your product apart and try to build a knock off.
      and if someone else discovers your trade secret on their own and files a patent then you can have problems.

    6. Re:Well duhhhh.... by Thyrteen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Prior art.

    7. Re:Well duhhhh.... by HungryHobo · · Score: 3, Informative

      only applies to published material.

    8. Re:Well duhhhh.... by russotto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Telling how you did it and then defending your patents by taking violators to court is costly and time-consuming. Keeping your mouth shut and forcing your competitors to take apart your product to even begin to comprehend how you did it is much cheaper

      But IBM has traditionally taken the former strategy. And given the number of partners they have in this (Mentor Graphics, RPI, Toppan) it seems a lot safer for them to get the patent than to try to maintain a lead with trade secrets.

  2. Yawn. Wake me when they've DONE it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Instead of just saying they're going to do it.

    Talk is cheap.

  3. Why can't you skip a generation? by Entropy98 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know its getting harder and harder, especially considering these things are only a handful of atoms across, but why can't they ever skip a generation? Why work on three generations of chips simultaneously? Why not just skip one?

    --
      find my ip

    1. Re:Why can't you skip a generation? by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Funny

      huh? They skipped 13 generations to get from 45 to 32 and they're skipping 10 generations to get from 32 to 22.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Why can't you skip a generation? by servognome · · Score: 4, Informative

      I know its getting harder and harder, especially considering these things are only a handful of atoms across, but why can't they ever skip a generation? Why work on three generations of chips simultaneously? Why not just skip one?

      Because it isn't just the technology you develop. You have to get several other companies to align their technology roadmaps with you. Processing/handling equipment, raw materials, and a number of other technologies are involved in the production of a wafer.
      The semiconductor manufacturing industry pretty moves together as a whole. Even if one company is out in front in terms of technology it isn't that far ahead, which is why so many companies just focus on design and have foundaries make their stuff.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    3. Re:Why can't you skip a generation? by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The semiconductor manufacturing industry pretty moves together as a whole. Even if one company is out in front in terms of technology it isn't that far ahead, which is why so many companies just focus on design and have foundaries make their stuff.

      Actually it is "that far ahead", but the investments are so absurdly huge only a few companies can afford to keep up. Do the math, going from say 65nm to 45nm means the surface area is halved but the real business difference is in the margin. Say it costs AMD 100$ to make, maybe they can sell it for 110$. Enter an Intel 45nm, they produce it for 50$ and still sell it for 110$. Which is why AMDs Atom competiton is ridiculous - yes it can concievably keep up on performance but the margins are abysmal compared to the extremely small die size of an Atom which means Intel will be the only one making any money. In the long run it'll be better for everyone if Intel stumbles a little and competition stays intense, because they are bleeding their competitors dry. Notice that Intel is making substantial pushes into UMPCs, mobile devices, motherboards (more than chipsets before), graphics and SSDs. All of that is funded first and foremost from their superior process technology, their designs are good too but not that spectacular.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Why can't you skip a generation? by HungryHobo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, I got that impression too, it's not so much that their chips are the most fantastic on the market but rather that they can produce more, faster and for less money than everyone else.

    5. Re:Why can't you skip a generation? by Nullav · · Score: 4, Funny

      45nm chips do not pop out of the vaginae of 65nm chips. -1, Bad non-car analogy

      --
      I just read Slashdot for the articles.
    6. Re:Why can't you skip a generation? by something_wicked_thi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nanometers aren't discrete units, you know.

      The real reason they don't skip generations is because it's not cost effective. Intel is making a killing on its tick/tock model where they shrink the process in one model and change the architecture in the next. This way, they can pipeline. They can have their semiconductor people working out how to make it smaller while the VHDL people are throwing together a new chip. They each have twice as long as if they were coordinated, delays in one don't necessarily affect the other, and everybody is kept busy.

      If they wanted to skip a generation, then the fab guys would probably take longer, which means they'd have a time when they weren't pumping out new, incrementally better CPUs to sell to people. They'd make less money, and the consumer would have to wait longer to get something better.

    7. Re:Why can't you skip a generation? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative

      When you start designing a CPU, you have a transistor budget. Someone looks into their crystal ball and says 'in five years, when you've completed the design, we will be able to give you n transistors and sell the resulting chip in the market segment we want.' This is really hard to do for two reasons. The first is that it requires them to predict what the market will want five years in advance (the P4 was probably the biggest example of a miss-prediction here). The other is that they need to work out how fast the process technology will improve.

      Moore's Law is usually used for the second part, but it's basically a self-fulfilling prophesy. The process people are told 'we need this transistor density in five years.' When they have made enough developments to get it down to that size, they start building the new fabs. If they go too fast then this screws up the core team because they suddenly have more transistors than they expect. Each chip is designed for a range of about a factor of two transistors. As process technology evolves over the core's life, they shrink it for the low end and bolt on a few optional bits at the top end (better vector units, more cache - basically anything they cut from the original design because they ran out of space). A bigger jump at the start of the run eliminates the headroom, and means they won't have an improved product in two years. It also may mean that the next process jump won't happen on time, so the current generation and next generation chips will have the same cost-per-transistor.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:Why can't you skip a generation? by Iamthecheese · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yer Intel Captains can't do that anyway matey. The kind of bosuns Intel hires are the finest on the seven seas! The finest sailors won't sit on their arses and grind their swords, them kinds like to be up and doing! They like the smell of fresh booty in the morning! If Intel let those people sit, they'd keel-haul the bosses and set sail for new horizons! YARRRRRRRRR

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    9. Re:Why can't you skip a generation? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Say it costs AMD 100$ to make, maybe they can sell it for 110$. Enter an Intel 45nm, they produce it for 50$ and still sell it for 110$

      True, to a point. This depends on Intel getting the volumes up, however. The vast majority of the cost of a wafer of chips is the cost of building the fab in the first place. Each 45nm fab cost around $1-1.5bn. Intel aims to sell 100m of these by 2011. If they are the entire output from one fab in this time then they have a $10 cost just from fab creation (in practice, they will be the partial output from several fabs - not sure of the exact numbers). If they only sell 50m, then the investment cost is $20 each. In contrast, AMD can keep running their old fabs which have the up-front costs spread over a load of chips they've already made. If they have lower volumes than Intel, then the older process technology will keep being cheaper.

      This is why Intel is so hard to compete with. They have such massive sales that their per-unit cost for a new fab is very low, while for their competitors it is much higher. This is why most other chip designers get their cores fab'd by a third party - if you're building chips for a dozen or more other companies then it's easier to get the volumes high enough that the unit cost of production is low.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:Why can't you skip a generation? by poopdeville · · Score: 4, Informative

      That isn't how chip fabrication or design works at all.

      Intel has three design teams, in three countries. They compete for the next Intel release. The israeli team won the Core/Core 2 Duo design. All the design teams were expected (and told) to keep Moore's law in mind as the miniaturization teams worked out the shrinking details. The Core/C2D was the most efficient processor for that many transistors.

      The new 80 core machines are also coming out of the Israeli design team. These things don't even have (many) more transistors than a C2D. But each core is basically a streamlined Pentium 2 core (like the Core architecture), and they all share a large cache, and Apple has first dibs. Sweet.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
  4. the method... by lordholm · · Score: 5, Informative

    FTFA: "IBM said that computational scaling overcomes these limitations by using mathematical techniques to modify the shape of the masks and the characteristics of the illuminating source used to image the circuits for each layer of an integrated circuit."

    That gives you an idea. They are not being more secretive than normal.

    --
    "Civis Europaeus sum!"
  5. Who knows.. by eebra82 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The article doesn't mention when such chips would be ready for production and I doubt that IBM's original press release sheds any light on that subject. So all this COULD mean is that IBM only announced their breakthrough ahead of Intel, not that they are ahead or behind Intel.

    It's still good to see that Moore's law is hanging in there.

    1. Re:Who knows.. by Bender_ · · Score: 3, Funny

      Indeed, they have not even demonstrated working devices yet. The press release is nothing but the announcement of the utilization of one specific technique.

      09/19/2008, The internet. Slashdot user Bender_ announces to leapfrog IBM and Intel by intending to build 10 nm structures in his garage.

  6. AMD's partner IBM? by fishyfool · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does this mean the Phenom will be produced on 22nm scale? Could be a very interesting development in the AMD/Intel chip wars.

    --
    Enjoy Every Sandwich
    1. Re:AMD's partner IBM? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The writeup is misleading. 45nm is in production now, and 32nm is due in 2009. The work at IBM is basic research which will be used by both Intel and IBM to make 22nm chips later on.

      At least I think that's how it works. I guess Intel and IBM license patents from each other to allow them all to use the same level of technology. It certainly seems unlikely that IBM will be ahead of Intel in introducing smaller feature sizes since Intel is usually at the head of the pack.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  7. Description from IBM by wyoung76 · · Score: 5, Informative
  8. well, duh by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Funny

    Unfortunately the phrase "computational scaling" doesn't actually convey any information about how they've solved it.

    Using some of SCO's intellectual property, of course...

  9. Physical Limitations by LS · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "...but chipmakers have hit a problem in that current lithographic methods are not adequate for designs as small as 22nm owing to fundamental physical limitations. IBM claims to have solved this problem."

    This is virtually the same statement made every time a smaller fabrication process is announced. It conveys no information. Obviously some physical limitation was preventing them from making smaller circuits, and then they overcame them to make them even smaller.

    LS

    --
    There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
  10. how about something new? by bussdriver · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'd like to see somebody do something new besides just get smaller. CELL for example.

    Most users are just fine with a fixed system on a chip with no PCI. (ram too if you could pull that off) If you want to reduce power and cost you'd place as much as possible on a single chip. (using crazy IP games they could buy designs for parts on the chip-- consolidating manufacturing as well.)

    How about a working variation of Hyperthreading? have 1.5 CPUs and manage it so almost runs like 2 full CPUs? (since pipelines are still problems.)

    At least AMD is going to combine GPUs. But next they need to think about how to better integrate the vector processing that GPUs are taking over - instead of the weak MMX/SSE/etc features which have a lot of overlap in their uses.

    How about hardware accelerated stacks? MMUs that can handle a driver memory space (not just kernel and user.)

    Advances in clockless processing?

    Just slapping more cores on chips is the lazy way out. Most people could use a business-class computer on a single chip with a stick of ram. maybe even a slower cheaper but larger secondary ram...(since GPU ram would get used a lot doing all that fluff that every OS now has.)

    1. Re:how about something new? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Most users are just fine with a fixed system on a chip with no PCI. (ram too if you could pull that off) If you want to reduce power and cost you'd place as much as possible on a single chip.

      Chips like TI's OMAP series (found in the Nokia handhelds, OpenPandora, and a load of other things) have a CPU, DSP, GPU and a load of other things in the same die. They use a stacked-chip design so you can plug 128MB of RAM (256MB coming soon) on top of the package. Power usage is around 250mW.

      How about a working variation of Hyperthreading?

      Hyperthreading is a Intel's implementation of an idea that IBM brought to market first (based on an academic research project which produced the first prototypes, with the original designer now working at Sun). Sun and IBM have had it working for years. As have a few others. Unlikely in ARM chips, since the performance/power benefits in this space are worse than with multi-core (Cortex A9 allows up to 4 cores). It only makes sense for Intel in the Atom because it allows two context to share an instruction decoder, which reduces the cost of x86 bloat a bit.

      How about hardware accelerated stacks?

      x86 chips have had hardware accelerated stacks for well over a decade - rewrite an iterative algorithm with a software stack as a recursive implementation and you'll see a speedup.

      MMUs that can handle a driver memory space

      IOMMUs have been in Sun and IBM chips since they introduced 64-bit CPUs and wanted to plug in 32-bit PCI devices. Newer Intel and AMD designs also include them.

      Advances in clockless processing?

      Asynchronous designs have been floating around for a few decades but still don't deliver the kind of performance benefit that offsets the extra complexity (which equates to extra power usage).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  11. An announcement of an initiative by TheMiddleRoad · · Score: 2, Informative

    Let me translate the press release:

    We announce that our future product, someday in the undefined and possibly distant future, will hit 22nm. We're making partnerships to make it happen.

    The slashdot writeup is misleading. For shame!

  12. Catch? by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe they did achieve 22, but perhaps there's are tiny catch: They don't work. They only claimed 22nm, not working 22nm. Watching all this Nov.2008 campaign coverage has taught me to read between the lines.

    1. Re:Catch? by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I read between your lines and all I see is white pixels.

  13. Like Intel doesn't have labs working on this? by Gldm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What a joke of an article. Every semiconductor manufacturer has several generations of process in various states in the lab. Woo IBM's showing sneak peaks at 22nm!

    I met with an Intel VP for an interview a while back and talked about where things are going. He had some nice lab-pr0n of what the photos claimed were 11nm transistors. I believe it was said that was "about 15 years out", and meant to offer reassurance that Moore's Law still had a bit more time left to go.

    Actually here, let me go dig up my transcript so I can get a proper quote:

    You're going to see that platforms are going to continue to evolve. We're moving to a faster cadence. The processor cadence is about a two year cadence, in terms of process technologies. By the way this is interesting. We know how to do Moore's Law for about another fifteen years which we've never had that kind of length of projection before. ...it sort of takes 3D transistors and all that, but we know how to do these things. It's all using standard silicon, it's CMOS it's extraordinarily well charictarized right? But we've got transistors running at 11 nanometers, I can show you photographs of them. We have the leakage issues but we've got a very good plan.

    That was 2 years ago, early October 2006. Who leapfrogged what now?

    --

    Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!

    1. Re:Like Intel doesn't have labs working on this? by Gldm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Umm... and that's relevant how? "Fabrication process" isn't a valid object for future speculation? How about FTA:

      "claiming that the process will enable the production of smaller, more powerful and energy-efficient devices "

      Will enable? Not does enable? Now enables? Has enabled?

      How about "unveiled their fabrication process"? Oh wait it's "unveiled their strategy" for the fabrication process. Not the same thing.

      The entire thing is future tense. It's not out yet. Hence why I compared it to other things which are also not out yet. When does the article say this 22nm process will be out? Oh wait, it doesn't! It just says that Intel plans to have 32nm out in 2009, and then something about how "chipmakers have hit a problem in that current lithographic methods are not adequate for designs as small as 22nm owing to fundamental physical limitations" without really anything to back that claim up.

      --

      Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!

  14. By the blood of Thor! by ZarathustraDK · · Score: 4, Funny

    Here in Denmark we want our chips big and crunchy. Silly americans' chips are so small they can drink them from a mead-horn.

    --
    If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
  15. *yawn* Intel announced their 15nm process in 2001 by HannethCom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=10810046

    Though a more recent article stated that the first plant using 15nm won't be online until late 2011, or early 2012 at the latest.

    In the silicon production market there is usually about a 5 year, or more, period between when something is announced, and when it is in production. Which means we will see IBM's 22nm process as early as late 2013.

    --
    Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
  16. Still not a good idea by Moraelin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, unfortunately it's a bit like the problem with conspiracy theories: anything that needs the complete cooperation of thousands to keep a secret, isn't going to really stay a secret. Building a 22nm fab is going to require a lot of stuff, and a lot of people knowing what is being done there, how, and why. It takes only one disgruntled employee, or some chinese subcontractor going, "hmm, I wonder what'd they buy that big an electron gun for... too big for electron microscopy... could it be they're using electrons at this many electron-volts instead of light?" to lose that trade secret in a jiffy.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Still not a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A fab is huge, most of the people who work on a site are completely ignorant of the details of how such deep magic is performed, most of those thousands are only concerned about keeping the xyz network up or replacing/upgrading servers in the datacenter.
      Many of the machines are closed units which only ever get opened by a small number of techs.

      Actual knowledge of how they do what they do can be kept between a surprisingly small group of people.

      Yes someone could take a stab at it but much of the time it's the fine details rather than the general idea that make an idea workable.

    2. Re:Still not a good idea by houghi · · Score: 2, Funny

      You just made all movies with super villains seem as if they are unrealistic.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:Still not a good idea by John+Betonschaar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's not about only fab's, it's also about R&D on the production technology, the machines that perform the 'deep magic' also need to be developed, tested and put into production.

      I'm working for ASML myself, which makes more than half of the lithography gear on the market, and I can attest that a surprisingly LARGE number of people on-site here know all the ins and outs of ASML scanner technology, both the stuff already on the market as well as the bleeding-edge stuff that no-one outside is supposed to know about.

      ASML has 6500+ employees, so it's a pretty safe bet knowledge leaks out. I don't see why this would be different for IBM.

    4. Re:Still not a good idea by twostix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Well, unfortunately it's a bit like the problem with conspiracy theories: anything that needs the complete cooperation of thousands to keep a secret, isn't going to really stay a secret."

      Sooo...there's no such thing as secret military weapons development and programmes, and *definately* no state secrets. Every one knows the exact inner workings of every aspect of the CIA and NSA, the exact recipe for Coke and millions of other major trade secrets across the world aren't secrets either.

      Also Germany must have known the exact details of the D-day landings, and France and the rest of the world had intimate knowledge of Germanys plan to invade, date, time and all! Cause like you said all those hundreds of thousands of men involved in the preparation of those operations couldn't possibly have kept the details of it to themselves...right?

      Rabid anti-conspiracy theorists are on the opposite side of exactly the same bent coin as rabidly pro-conspiracy theorists, both are living in a demonstrable fantasy world. It's not hard to protect a secret, everyone does it many times a day one way or another. I'd say that in general, the tiny piece of the puzzle that one person is exposed to is meaningless to them and even if they did tell everyone, who would listen?

  17. Litho Methods they might use by usul294 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm still in college and we have a big semiconductors lab, so we had to learn the basics of lithography in class. The problem that people are running into is that everything uses UV light, which theoretically can make details of 10nm (its wavelength) but this is incredibly hard. There exists, but not commercially viable, techniques which use x-rays (masking material an issue), electron beams and proton beams(deBroigle wavelength). If IBM got one of these to work commercially it would be a big deal. If they built a state of the art one of these and made some 10nm features, no big deal. Probably the single biggest issue is that they have to make a machine accurate enough to be exactly in the focal point of the beam(~0.1 nm) and the smaller the beam you are using, the smaller the focal point so making more precise machinery is as much of a limiter as small beams.