Slashdot Mirror
Intel On Track For 32 nm Manufacturing
yaksha writes "Intel said on Wednesday that it has completed the development phase of its next manufacturing process that will shrink chip circuits to 32 nanometers.
The milestone means that Intel will be able to push faster, more efficient chips starting in the fourth quarter.
In a statement, Intel said it will provide more technical details at the International Electron Devices Meeting next week in San Francisco. Bottom line: Shrinking to a 32 nanometer is one more step in its 'tick tock' strategy, which aims to create a new architecture with new manufacturing process every 12 months. Intel is obviously betting that its rapid-fire advancements will produce performance gains so jaw dropping that customers can't resist."
I can't wait for the multichip Xeon's based on Corei7, Intel might finally have a chip that can compete with AMD in the database space next year. Oh and for your raid problem, use HP, a RAID array is portal across all systems and controllers that use the same generation HDD's. I have picked up an array out of a server, put it into a MSA and mounted it through an HBA with no problems then expanded the array online with additional disks to grow capacity =)
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
For this reason the SI standard dictates that metric units such as "km" or "nm" are never capitalized, even on a sign that is written ALL-CAPS.
It does, here is a RAID 5 example: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/323434
http://www.zombieapocalypse.tv/
If Intel is able to shrink its die size every 12 months AMD is in trouble.
For what it's worth "tick-tock" is actually alternating between a new architecture and a process shrink every 12 months. "Q4" in the summary means Q4 2009.
Am I the only one feeling we might have reached the point of diminishing returns, at least for desktops, in the last 2-3 years. All the shrinkage past 90 nanometers just feels underwhelming. Stuff beyond Pentium 3 has not been revolutionary, performance wise, for a desktop.
I hate to be snarky but you sound like one of those people who bought the crap about the "Megahertz Myth". Processor clock rate has little to do with performance. I'll agree that pentium 4 was underwhelming, but Core was a huge hit and saw huge performance, especially toward the ones that were released in early this year that used the high k dielectric.
In my programming classes at UW-Milwaukee the professors emphasize that we should design our code to be easy to read/edit even if that means using up more computation cycles. This makes editing the code easier in the future, which is appreciated by future programmers who have to learn your code and can save the company some time and money. And since computation resources have become so cheap (practically unlimited for most applications) it doesn't really affect the performance of the program to a noticeable degree.