Slashdot Mirror


Intel Moves Up 32nm Production, Cuts 45nm

Vigile writes "Intel recently announced that it was moving up the production of 32nm processors in place of many 45nm CPUs that have been on the company's roadmap for some time. Though spun as good news (and sure to be tough on AMD), the fact is that the current economy is forcing Intel's hand as they are unwilling to invest much more in 45nm technologies that will surely be outdated by the time the market cycles back up and consumers and businesses start buying PCs again. By focusing on 32nm products, like Westmere, the first CPU with integrated graphics, Intel is basically putting a $7 billion bet on a turnaround in the economy for 2010."

56 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. Performance Is Overrated by alain94040 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I used to work for a processor company. I learned one thing: it's impossible to beat Intel, they just invest so much in technology that even if you come up with a smarter cache algorithm, a better pipeline, or (god forbid) a better instruction set, they'll still crush you.

    That used to be true for the last 20 years. The only problem today is that no one really cares anymore about CPU speed. 32nm technology will allow Intel to put more cores on a die. They'll get marginal, if any, frequency improvements. We just need to wait for the applications to follow and learn to use 16 cores and more. I know my workload could use 16 cores, but the average consumer PC? Not so sure. That's why I'd like to see prices starting to fall, instead of having same prices, more power PCs.

    --
    FairSoftware.net -- where geeks are their own boss

    1. Re:Performance Is Overrated by CarpetShark · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I know my workload could use 16 cores, but the average consumer PC? Not so sure.

      The average consumer PC uses: * wordprocessing, which barely needs it, but can use it when performance is necessary, for background processing like print jobs, grammar checking and speech recog * spreadsheets, which lend themselves very well to multithreading * games, which could lend themselves well, if engines start doing stuff like per-creature-ai and pathfinding (ignoring stuff that's already on the GPU like physics and gfx) in proper threads. * web browsing. Admittedly, webpages are not the ideal scenario for multicore, but with multiple tabs, and multiple subprograms (flash, javascript, downloads, etc.) all running in threads, this could utilise multicores well too. Presumably future use of more XML etc. will help to push the boundaries there. If we ever get down the road of RDF on the desktop, then multicores will be very useful, in collecting and merging data streams, running subqueries, etc.

    2. Re:Performance Is Overrated by Jurily · · Score: 2, Informative

      That used to be true for the last 20 years. The only problem today is that no one really cares anymore about CPU speed. 32nm technology will allow Intel to put more cores on a die. They'll get marginal, if any, frequency improvements. We just need to wait for the applications to follow and learn to use 16 cores and more. I know my workload could use 16 cores, but the average consumer PC? Not so sure. That's why I'd like to see prices starting to fall, instead of having same prices, more power PCs.

      We don't need more cores. Someone should have realized it by now. Raw CPU output isn't what the market needs anymore (even on Gentoo, which is kinda hard to accept).

      We need the same CPU with less power usage.

    3. Re:Performance Is Overrated by digitalunity · · Score: 2, Informative

      I disagree strongly. Processor speed is still very important - just not for the average consumer. For quite some time now, the majority of consumer applications have been IO and/or GPU bound.

      There is no such thing as a 'fastest useful processor' for some people, primarily in research and academia.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    4. Re:Performance Is Overrated by Chabo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Disclaimer: I work for Intel, but have no bearing on company-wide decisions, and I'm not trying to make a marketing pitch. I'm merely making observations based on what I read on public websites like /. and Anandtech.

      That's why I'd like to see prices starting to fall, instead of having same prices, more power PCs.

      Prices are falling. Price cuts were just made nearly across the board.

      Plus you can buy a $50 CPU today that's cheaper and more powerful than a CPU from 4 years ago.

      Die shrinks necessarily make CPUs cheaper to make, because more chips can fit onto a wafer. Also, if you take a 65nm chip of a certain speed, and move it to 45nm, then power consumption is reduced. The same will be true moving to 32nm.

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
    5. Re:Performance Is Overrated by von_rick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We need the same CPU with less power usage.

      If people are going to stick with web browsing and multimedia entertainment for the rest of their lives, the processors in their present state can serve the purpose just fine. However if more and more people actually take computing seriously, the availability of multiple cores to do parallel computing on your own desktops would be a dream come true for most people involved in computationally intensive research disciplines. If I had the ability to use 8 cores at 2GHz, at all times, I'd have finished my analysis in less than a week. But with no such luxury (back in 2005) I had to queue my process on a shared cluster and wait until morning to see the results.

      Raw CPU power with multiple cores isn't needed for everyday use, but there is a need for such processors in research circles.

      --

      Face your daemons!

    6. Re:Performance Is Overrated by Jurily · · Score: 5, Insightful

      However if more and more people actually take computing seriously, the availability of multiple cores to do parallel computing on your own desktops would be a dream come true for most people involved in computationally intensive research disciplines. If I had the ability to use 8 cores at 2GHz, at all times, I'd have finished my analysis in less than a week. But with no such luxury (back in 2005) I had to queue my process on a shared cluster and wait until morning to see the results.

      Blah. Do you know how much CPU it took to fucking land someone on the moon? Why does it take 200 times that just to browse the web?

      I know some people need raw computation, but c'mon. The average boot time is still ~60 seconds on the desktop. Why?

      And it doesn't even matter, which OS. Why do we need more calculations to get ready to so something than it took to get someone up there? Seriously.

      Modern software is bloat. Let's do something about that, first.

    7. Re:Performance Is Overrated by Chabo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If someone made a CPU with many cores (>25, let's say), then one easy way to use all those cores would be to have each NPC have their own pathfinding thread.

      The problem right now in game design is the wide variety of hardware on the market. You still have gamers like me who are still running on single-core machines, and you have people who are running quad-core hyper-thread machines. As a game studio, you have to code for everyone. If you make a thread for each NPC now, then the task switching alone would choke the CPU for most games.

      You can read about Valve's difficulties making the Source engine multi-threaded in their paper "Dragged Kicking and Screaming: Source Multicore". http://valvesoftware.com/publications.html

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
    8. Re:Performance Is Overrated by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Landing on the moon was simple newtonian physics. Not a hard problem to solve at all. If you want something really hard, try cracking RSA. Try protein folding. There's a lot of problems out there that are a lot harder to solve than landing a craft on the moon.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    9. Re:Performance Is Overrated by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Informative

      32nm means that the same processor can take half the area on the die. You could use that to get more cores, or you could just use that to get more out of the wafer.

      I think someone noted not too long ago that the price of silicon (in ICs) by area hasn't changed much over the years. But the price per element has sure gone down due to process reductions.

      If you change nothing else, your 32 nm chip will consume less power and cost less than an otherwise nearly identical 45 nm chip.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    10. Re:Performance Is Overrated by mephistophyles · · Score: 5, Informative

      I wasn't around when they landed someone on the moon so I can't quite comment on that bit, but I can tell you what I (and the rest of my kind) use the extra processing power for:

      Finite Element Analysis (simulating car crashes to make them safer before we crash the dummies in them).
      Multibody Dynamics (Simulation of robot behavior saves a ton of money, we can simulate the different options before we build 10 different robots or spend a year figuring out something by trial and error)
      Computational Fluid Dynamics (designing cars, jets and pretty much anything in between like windmills and how they affect their surroundings and how efficient they are)
      Simulating Complex Systems (designing control schemes for anything from chemical plants, to cruise control to autopilots) Computational Thermodynamics (Working on that tricky global warming thing, or just trying to figure out how to best model and work with various chemicals or proteins)

      This is just the uses (that I know of) that more raw power can help out in Mechanical Engineering. I still have to wait about an hour for certain simulations or computations to run and they're not even all that complex yet. The faster these things run (even a few percent increases) can save us tons of time in the long run. And time is money...

    11. Re:Performance Is Overrated by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know my workload could use 16 cores, but the average consumer PC? Not so sure. That's why I'd like to see prices starting to fall, instead of having same prices, more power PCs.

      What will happen is that the "average consumer PC" wiil do different tasks, not just today's job faster. For example what about replacing a mouse with just your hand. A webcam-like camera watches your hands and finders. It's multi-touch but without the touch pad. OK there is one use for 8 or your 16 cores. Maybe the other 8 cores can answer the telephone for you and determine if the phone should ring (smart phone call screening) I can think of LOT of things I could do with 16, 32 or 1,000 cores that simple can not be done today.

      Who would have thought 30 years ago that most compute power would be used to move pixels around on a glass screen. That is mostly what computers "compute" today, the user interface.

    12. Re:Performance Is Overrated by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Blah. Do you know how much CPU it took to fucking land someone on the moon? Why does it take 200 times that just to browse the web?

      Because space travel is mathematically dead simple, you have a couple of low-degree differential equations to solve for a very small data set. A high-school student could probably do it in an afternoon with a slide rule (in fact, I think I recall hearing that (early?) astronauts actually did carry slide rules in case of computer failure). Video codecs (like for youtube) are much more complex and operate on much larger sets of data.

    13. Re:Performance Is Overrated by Anthony_Cargile · · Score: 2, Funny
      IANA (I Am Not Awake):

      No, not every application needs to be written to operate on X number of cores, operating systems and virtual machines (Java, .NET, etc.) need to allow the applications to run on multiple cores, regardless of development/other factors.

      ...possibly dynamically updating the software on a per-machine/core# basis to set the number of cores for the software to run on tailored better for that user's processor in a more HAL-like manner..

      There, fixed it for... me.

    14. Re:Performance Is Overrated by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why would even watching a video on youtube need a 16-core processor?

      You clearly underestimate how much Flash sucks.

      People got along just fine on Pentium II's.

      And they did quite a lot less. Ignoring Flash, those Pentium IIs, I'm guessing, are physically incapable of watching a YouTube video, and are certainly incapable of watching an HD video from, say, Vimeo.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    15. Re:Performance Is Overrated by pimpimpim · · Score: 2, Insightful

      additionally: what is the lifetime of these smaller chips? Or the percentage of faulty cpus.

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    16. Re:Performance Is Overrated by Chabo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Additional disclaimer: I'm not a CPU engineer, and this is still based on things I read on public websites.

      I can't find the article, but Anandtech explained this well. Apparently the high-k+ process that's used in 45nm and smaller Intel chips make for incredibly low leakage currents.

      I did, however, find a graph that shows total system power consumption moving from 65nm (Conroe) to 45nm (Penryn), at the same clock speed: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3137&p=6

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
    17. Re:Performance Is Overrated by evanbd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The physics and math of the navigation is (computationally) easy. The hard part is building the high performance, high reliability vehicle. There are many, many hard problems in rocket engineering, but most of the ones associated with the software aspects of guidance, navigation, and control are staightforward. Going to the Moon is hard; no doubt about it. That really says nothing about the computing required, though.

    18. Re:Performance Is Overrated by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah. I remember speccing out my first home-built system. The Socket 5 motherboard cost $175. You can now get motherboards for $30-40. The Cyrix 6x86 chip was $150 (an actual Intel chip cost nearly twice that). You can now get basic CPU's for under $50. The case + power supply was $80. Current price about $35. A fairly small hard drive ran $150. You can get drives for $35 now. RAM was $40 per stick for about the smallest useful size. A 1GB stick of DDR2 will now cost you $12.

      Computers have been getting both faster and cheaper for quite a while now. The thing is, while I certainly believe CPU's are fast enough for most people now (honestly I think we'll gain more by advances in storage speeds, and internet bandwidth, then processor speed), I think Intel, AMD, and the like can't really go that route and survive in their current form. Their business model has been largely built around a growing number of computer users, and all existing users having to buy a new system (or upgrade their old one, which almost always involves a new CPU) every few years. When that race is over, the rate of purchase for chips will plummet. It's in their best interest to try and continue to push the R&D and make bigger/faster chips, and to then push marketing to convince people that they need them.

      And for what it's worth, being a geek, programmer, and person generally interested in seeing technology continue to progress forward, it'd be somewhat depressing (no matter how logical) to see simple economics stop our progress in this area.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    19. Re:Performance Is Overrated by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Funny

      But how much of that is the need for raw power VS the problem of really crappy code? I surf and watch Youtube just fine on a 1.1GHz Celeron, but that is because I'm using Win2K. If I was to try ANYTHING in Vista on a 1.1GHz Celeron with 512MB of RAM I'd probably commit suicide out of frustration just waiting on the damned thing to boot to the desktop!

      The point is when I got into computing ( and yes I'm old, dammit!) programmers squeezed every bit of performance they possibly could while using as little resources as possible. Why? Because they didn't have multicores with craploads of RAM to waste. But now I have noticed the software has taken on the SUV model of not caring how crappy the resource suckage as long as you can add more crap to it. That is why I am hoping that this trend towards Netbooks ends up with programmers looking at performance again. There is NO reason you should need a freaking dual core to watch Youtube! Coders need to learn to write efficient code again instead of expecting Moore's law to do the heavy lifting. Because with the economy in the toilet and prices likely to go no where but up when it comes to energy we could all use more efficient machines instead of simply filling up the cycles with ever more bloated code.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    20. Re:Performance Is Overrated by dfn_deux · · Score: 3, Funny

      I believe that they still have a slide rule as standard issue equipment on NASA space missions. It's hard to argue with the cost associated with adding an additional layer of fault tolerance... If it could, in a pinch, be used to plot a survivable reentry or a similarly life saving task when they sent the first rockets to space it can still serve the same function today. Sort of like the saying, "an elevator can't break, it can only become stairs."

      --
      -*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
    21. Re:Performance Is Overrated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Apollo computers only had to cope with up to a few thousand kilobits per second of telemetry data and the like. Decoding a high definition YouTube stream means converting a few million bits per second of h.264 video into a 720p30 video stream (which is about 884 million bits per second).

      Given that h.264 video is enormously more complicated to decode than telemetry data, and that the volume of it is at least several thousand times greater, I would be outright surprised if web browsing required ONLY 10000 times as much CPU power as the Apollo landers.

    22. Re:Performance Is Overrated by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Again: What quality of movie?

      I can watch 1920x1080 movies, smoothly, at least 30fps, if not 60. A quick calculation shows that the poor machine would likely be using over half its RAM just to store a single frame at that resolution. I'd be amazed if your 486 could do 640x480 at an acceptable framerate -- note that we had a different measure of "acceptable" back then.

      Also consider: Even if we disregard Flash, I am guessing talking to the network -- just straight TCP and IP -- is going to be its own kind of difficult. Keep in mind, Ogg Vorbis was named for how it "ogged" the audio, and machines of the time couldn't really do much else -- while decoding audio.

      Yes, there are hacks we could use to make it work. There are horribly ugly (but efficient) codecs we could use. We could drop JavaScript support, and give up the idea of rich web apps.

      And yes, there is a lot of waste involved. But it's been said before, and it is worth mentioning -- computers need to be faster now because we are making them do more. Some of it is bloat, and some of it is actual new functionality that would've been impossible ten years ago.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    23. Re:Performance Is Overrated by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But how much of that is the need for raw power VS the problem of really crappy code?

      There's a lot of each.

      Every now and then, I run a test of a YouTube (or other) video played in its native Flash player, and in a third-party player like VLC or mplayer.

      Not only is the mplayer version higher quality (better antialiasing), and more usable (when I move my mouse to another monitor, Flash fullscreen goes away), but it's the difference between using 30-50% CPU for the tiny browser version, and using 1% or less fullscreen.

      In Flash 10 -- yes, I'll say that again, flash TEN, the latest version -- they finally introduced hardware acceleration and 3D graphics. I think I know why it's called Flash 10 -- it finally lets Flash developers do what desktop developers were doing 10 years ago.

      now I have noticed the software has taken on the SUV model of not caring how crappy the resource suckage as long as you can add more crap to it.

      There are other reasons to hate SUVs...

      But here's a good reason to think about functionality and development time long before you think about performance:

      While there are obvious exceptions, you pretty much always find that performance is inversely proportional to readability, maintainability, and stability.

      Specifically, there was a study which showed that bugs per LOC remain constant across languages. So, if it takes me 500 lines to do something in assembly, and 100 lines to do it in C, and 10 lines to do it in Ruby, I'll take the Ruby version unless I have a very good reason not to. There's less chance I'll screw something up, and it's probably much clearer what I mean.

      The tools will catch up -- Ruby just got twice as fast. And the really performance-critical stuff, I can rewrite in C, or even assembly, if I must. But for the most part, even on a netbook, there's tons of resources to throw at the problem, versus the amount of programmer resources it might take.

      Because with the economy in the toilet and prices likely to go no where but up

      ...

      Do you have any idea how the economy works?

      when it comes to energy we could all use more efficient machines

      Ok, quick question: How much power does your system use? This laptop typically uses less than 25 watts -- that's for the whole system. The cord is capable of 90 watts, but it works.

      It has 128 gigs of disk space, 4 gigs of RAM, and dual 2.5 ghz CPUs, that run at 800 mhz most of the time.

      If a program is 10 megs, uses 200 megs of RAM, and uses some 20% of a single core, I really don't care -- I might bitch about how it could be more efficient, but it works, and I can run

      If a program is 100 kilobytes, uses 2 megs of RAM, and less than 1% of a single core, fine! Great! But if that program also crashes periodically, isn't 64-bit compatible, and is missing large chunks of functionality -- and despite being open source, I'm loathe to try to add it myself, as my C fu is not strong, and their code isn't very readable... I'd say it's not worth it, and I'd seriously consider that inefficient alternative.

      You are right -- you shouldn't need a dual core to watch Youtube. But wishing for the "good old days" is just as foolish.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    24. Re:Performance Is Overrated by blool · · Score: 2, Funny

      space travel is mathematically dead simple

      Welcome to Slashdot, one of the few places where rocket science is considered simple.

  2. Nicwe economic conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually they were able to step up some of there fabs faster then expected.

  3. Re:A problem for AMD? by Chabo · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
  4. Too big to fail by unlametheweak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Intel is basically putting a $7 billion bet on a turnaround in the economy for 2010."

    And if they lose the bet then they can just ask for a bailout like the financial firms and auto industry did. Because Intel is too big to fail.

  5. Re:Safe Bet by CannonballHead · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's presuming that the same media/politicians don't make it worse.

  6. The 32nm processors use less power. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The biggest issue for Intel is that most people already have computers that are fast enough for them.... Or, they don't have the money or desire to buy a computer.

    The 32nm processors, I understand, will reduce the power needed even further, making it sensible for data centers to upgrade.

    1. Re:The 32nm processors use less power. by RajivSLK · · Score: 5, Informative

      most people already have computers

      Really? Have an eyeopening look here:

      http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12758865&subjectID=348909&fsrc=nwl

      Computer ownership is really very low worldwide. Even the US has only 76 computers per 100 people. Keep in mind that includes people like myself who, between work and home use, have 4 computers alone.

      Some other socking figures:
      Italy 36 computers per 100 people
      Mexico 13 computers per 100 people
      Spain 26 computers per 100 people
      Japan 67 computers per 100 people
      Russia 12 computers per 100 people

      And the billions of people in China and India don't even make the list.

      Seems to me that there are a lot more computers Intel could be selling in the future. The market is far from saturated.

    2. Re:The 32nm processors use less power. by von_rick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Great point. People who bought their machines when the processors were at 65-nm won't need to replace them until about 2011. By then, according to Intel's own prediction, we would be in the sub 10-nm range.

      This is from an article from mid 2008: full article

      Intel debuted its 45nm process late last year and has been ramping its Penryn line of 45nm processors steadily throughout this year. The next die shrink milestone will be the 32nm process, set to kick off next year, followed by 14nm a few years after that and then sub-10nm, if all goes according to plan.

      --

      Face your daemons!

  7. Alternatively by pugugly · · Score: 3, Funny

    Or at least, if the economy *doesn't* turn around by 2010, that the shitstorm will be so bad at that point they don't care.

    Pug

    --
    An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
  8. bet by Gogo0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    a 7 billion dollar bet? thats peanuts! wake me up when someone makes a 1.5 trillion dollar bet on the economy.

    1. Re:bet by CannonballHead · · Score: 3, Informative

      *wakes Gogo0 up*

  9. Re:A problem for AMD? by Jurily · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If this means AMD gets 45nm before Intel gets 32nm, doesn't that give AMD a performance window?

    You mean being only one step behind instead of two?

  10. Intel's investment strategy by Hadlock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Intel is basically putting a $7 billion bet on a turnaround in the economy

    NEWSFLASH: Intel has been dumping 10 BILLION dollars a year into R&D since at least 1995. Did not RTFA, but if the blurb is to be taken at face value, the reporter obviously did no real research on the topic.

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
    1. Re:Intel's investment strategy by andy_t_roo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Intel had a Fourth-Quarter Revenue of $10.7 Billion , so it isn't quite an insignificant amount, but if it were to completely disappear it wouldn't be a catastrophic problem.

  11. Re:Safe Bet by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The prices were over valued four years ago. The only thing is that people who bought four years ago are still in the hole. They still need to pay down as fast as they can before they sell or they still owe after selling.

    What about those of us who made good decisions and didn't buy a house which was tremendously overpriced? Why is it our responsibility to bail out the greedy and the stupid? Enough is enough. Without consequences, this crap will continue forever, in all industries. You'll have to excuse those of us who live within our means and don't buy overpriced crap if we're more than a little pissed at having to carry all the dead weight.

  12. Re:Safe Bet by afidel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That the housing bubble did not fully burst is a BAD thing. Houses in many markets had reached an all time high multiple of average wages (to the tune of almost DOUBLE their historic averages). The fact that those prices weren't brought down nearly in line with historic averages means that we will either have a significant period of zero growth in housing (good) or that we are due for another round or two of devaluations (bad). Add to that the complete deterioration in consumer confidence due to wave after wave of mass layoffs and you have the recipe for a very bad time. Many economists have noted that the US savings rate has tripled in the last quarter which would normally be a good thing (we haven't been saving enough for almost a generation), but the fact that it happened all at once is NOT good as it can easily lead to a spiral of deflation as money is pulled out of the economy and the velocity of money decreases significantly.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  13. Re:Safe Bet by HornWumpus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The home owners just mail the bank their keys.

    In most states the bank has no recourse beyond the value of the house. It the states that they do have recourse the left over debt can be discharged in bankruptcy.

    Why should be GIVE real estate speculators back their losses? ALL real estate buyers in 2004 were speculators. Anybody who is buying into a market that is 'evaporating up' (jargon for maintaining no inventory with raising prices) is speculating.

    Would they have given us a share of their profit if things had turned out differently (not even taxes, CG are sheltered if you live there).

    They made a bet, they lost. They can already dump most of the loss onto the bank. Screw them. They bid real estate up to insane prices. They are not without fault.

    Any fix like you suggest will only make things worse in the long run. Foolish investors should lose money or there is no incentive to invest wisely.

    Should we make the Enron investors whole too? Madoff? Netscape? Tulip Bulbs?

    This is the real estate buying opportunity of a lifetime.

    We shouldn't have bailed out the banks ether.

    We shouldn't call a Trillion dollars of pork a stimulus. If Obama is correct and Stimulus == spending then we could just print money, buy the cellars of France dry, have a party and viola the problem is solved. Not gonna happen, spending has both stimulative and depressive affects. The money has to come from somewhere. Newly printed moneys value is extracted from the rest of the money in circulation. In my simplistic example France's wine industry would see the stimulation while the rest of the US economy would see the depressive affect.

    Too bad the vast majority of the leaches stuck on the government tit don't produce anything like the good wine.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  14. This isn't a leapfrog attempt by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For one thing, Intel has always been ahead of, well, everyone pretty much on fab processes. This isn't saying Intel will skip 45nm, they can't do that as they a;ready are producing 45nm chips in large quantities. They have a 45nm fab online in Arizona cranking out tons of chips. Their Core 2s were the first to go 45nm, though you can still get 65nm variants. All their new Core i7s are 45nm. So they've been doing it for awhile, longer than AMD has (AMD is also 45nm now).

    The headline isn't great because basically what's happening is Intel isn't doing any kind of leapfrog. They are doing two things:

    1) Canceling some planned 45nm products. They'd planned on rolling out more products on their 45nm process. They are now canceling some of those. So they'll be doing less 45nm products than originally planned, not none (since they already have some).

    2) Redirecting resources to stepping up the timescale on 32nm. They already have all the technology in place for this. Now it is the implementation phase. That isn't easy or fast. They have to retool fabs, or build new ones, work out all the production problems, as well as design chips for this new process. This is already under way, a product like this is in the design phases for years before it actually hits the market. However they are going to direct more resources to it to try and make it happen faster.

    More or less, they are just trying to shorten the life of 45nm. They want to get 32nm out the door quicker. To do that, they are going to scale back new 45nm offerings.

    Makes sense. Their reasoning is basically that the economy sucks right now, so people are buying less tech. Thus rolling out new products isn't likely to make them a whole lot of money. Also it isn't like the products they have are crap or anything, they compete quite well. So, rather than just try to offer incremental upgrades that people probably aren't that interested in, unless they are buying new, they'll just wait. They'll try and have 32nm out the door sooner so that when the economy does recover, their offerings are that much stronger.

    Over all, probably a good idea. Not so many people are buying systems just to upgrade right now, so having something just a bit better isn't a big deal. If someone needs a new system, they'll still buy your stuff, it's still good. Get ready so that when people do want to buy upgrades, you've got killer stuff to offer.

  15. Intel plans US Plants to Manufacture 32nm Chips by hydertech · · Score: 4, Informative

    Intel announced today that it was investing $7bln to build new manufacturing facilities in the US to manufacture these chips.

    The new facilities will be built at existing manufacturing plants in New Mexico, Oregon, and Arizona. Intel is estimating 7,000 new jobs will be created. BizJournals.com

    1. Re:Intel plans US Plants to Manufacture 32nm Chips by adpowers · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, I noticed that this morning when I read about the investment. They closed a bunch of older facilities in Asia, laying off the workers, and are building the new fancy fabs in the US (and creating high paying jobs in the process).

      Of course, the next thing that came to my mind is whether Slashdot would cover that aspect of the story. Sure enough, Slashdot's summary completely disregards that Intel is creating jobs in America. I suspect there are two reasons for this: 1. It hurts Slashdot's agenda if they report about companies insourcing, readers should only know about outsourcing by "the evil corporations". 2. Because Intel is the big bad wolf and we can't report anything good they do.

  16. Re:Why wait for 22nm? by plague911 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just a guess of mine. But the fact of the matter is that some semiconductor phd's out their think that the end of the line is coming for the reduction in device feature size. I believe my professor last term said he figured the end would come around 22nm mark not much further. I could be wrong about the exact number (i hated that class). But the point is once the end of the line is reached. Profits hit a brick wall and the whole industry may take a nose dive. Right now every year there is bigger and better being released. But what happens when technology stagnates? There will probably still be progress but the rate of progress will likely be slowed substantially. In short semiconductor companies may be in a race. But none of them want to finish that race.

  17. First CPU with integrated graphics by wiredlogic · · Score: 2, Informative

    That would be the Cyrix MediaGX circa 1997.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  18. Nope. Bad bet. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Despite the doomsayers, counting on the economy turning around by 2010 is a pretty safe bet.

    Nope. Very bad bet.

    If it were just a housing bubble it would have been a couple years of recession and we'd be coming out of it about then. The people and institutions who wrote bad mortgages and the people who bought houses too high would be hurt or bankrupted, the housing prices would drop to something sane, construction would slow (or stop for a while) until the unsold inventory and foreclosures had been sold off (or destroyed by neglect or arson for insurance) then pick up, and the capital now tied up in housing construction would be moved (again at a reduced price) to other productive uses. We're seeing a bit of that now.

    This time they "securitized" the bum mortgages and "bought insurance" - "credit default swaps" - to the tune of MORE than the Gross World Product, in order to get multi-A ratings on the paper backed by baskets of subprime mortgages. When the housing prices started down a bunch of people defaulted all at once. So those who "wrote the insurance" had to dump a whole bunch of commodities on the market (depressing the prices further) to raise funds to "pay off the insurance". Thus when "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded" there was a lot of collateral damage in other markets. But that also would have sorted itself out after a couple years.

    Unfortunately, the governments of the world, especially that of the United States, decided to try to "fix the problem". And now they're replicating EXACTLY the class of mistakes that turned a similar recession into the Great Depression - but more extremely, more rapidly, and without the safety net of the gold standard. The result, IMHO, is that we're probably in for a depression that will make the '30s look mild and short. And hyperinflation seems far more likely than not.

    Thus my sigline.

    As I see it, too much has been done ALREADY for a proper recovery to get started around 2010. (For starters, we're only about halfway through the underlying housing market collapse: The subprimes are largely crunched. But the teaser rates on a lot of other mortgages are expiring and even the government's billions of unbacked paper can't push the interest rate down far enough to save them - just to stretch out the agony.)

    If Intel is betting the farm on a hi-tech recovery in 2010, somebody else will probably own the farm in 2011.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  19. Re:Nope. Bad bet. by complete+loony · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The 90's recession should have been much worse, enough to pull the debt to income ratio back into line. It would have sucked, it may have been nearly as bad as the Great Depression. Instead since then almost every western country has been running their economies on credit cards and home loans leading to stupefying ludicrous bat-shit insane levels of debt. And when they ran out of rational borrowers, they started lending out money to anyone with a pulse with no credit checks and invented all those stupid ways of hiding the risk that you mentioned.

    So now that the whole mess has been exposed and house of cards is finally *starting* to fall, there is simply no way to stop it. It's going to hurt and it's going to effect absolutely everyone. No investment or currency will be safe.

    --
    09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
  20. Re:Safe Bet by Spit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's the problem with being intelligent: you'll always be in the minority and thus always at the mercy of the tyranny of the masses.

    --
    POKE 36879,8
  21. Re:Safe Bet by artor3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    FYI, poor people don't disappear when you stop looking at them.

    Having large amounts of poverty in the nation will breed crime, reduce sales, cause layoffs, and generally decrease the quality of life for those of us who planned ahead.

    Sometimes it sucks to be one of the responsible ones. If you didn't learn that throughout grade school and college, then I don't know what more to tell you.

  22. Being responsible != being doormat by HornWumpus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you didn't learn that throughout grade school and college, then I don't know what more to tell you.

    Nothing the R's did will help the situation. It was all just a final golden hand job from the government to the bankers.

    Nothing the D's will do will help the situation. It is all just a final golden hand job from the government to the usual dependents.

    Between them the currency is fucked.

    Europe is no safe bet, neither is Asia.

    Arguing over blame is pointless. They are mostly long dead anyhow. Those being blamed (and doing most of the blaming) are just the latest in a long line of check kiting fools who learned from their fathers how the 'game' was played.

    Good luck to us all.

    I see the next killer app as part social networking/part barter network. It will likely be craigslist.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  23. Re:Safe Bet by Kirijini · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "We shouldn't call a Trillion dollars of pork a stimulus"

    A whole hell of a lot of the stimulus package is tax cuts. Over 250 billion dollars worth. Another $350 billion is going to education, healthcare (like medicaid), and food stamps. You can't call any of that pork. That money isn't going to special projects in congresspeople's districts. All of it goes to the states, or relieves the tax burden on individuals and employers.

    There's also things like highway maintenance, energy investment, and some telecom stuff. You might consider that pork. It's not - its an investment in infrastructure. Massive investments like this produce demand for labor and resources, and creates opportunities for entrepreneurs to form small businesses, or for small businesses to become big businesses. Some of it is short term, and in established markets, like road-work and building construction contracting. Some of it is long term, and investment in developing or new markets, like alternative energy and electronic medical records.

    It is spending, instead of cutting. But look at the plan. It's not increasing the size of the national government. It's mostly aid to the states. You want to prevent pork? Then pay attention to your state legislature. They're gunna be the ones spending most of it.

    "This is the real estate buying opportunity of a lifetime."

    You can't buy if you don't have resources to pay with. If you have a huge amount of hard savings (cash or gold in your mattress), then you're right. Go out there and buy some foreclosed homes. If you have a huge amount of mutual funds, stocks, real estate, etc. then you've been losing value and probably can't afford buying new property. If you're like most people and borrow the huge amount of money you need to buy real estate, what assurance do you have that you can pay it back? Your job? How do you know you're gunna keep it through the bad economy? Nobody knows how bad this is gunna get.

    This isn't an opportunity for buying real estate. The opportunity comes when the recovery is underway, as people feel more secure and credit loosens up.

  24. It's not just about the cores by symbolset · · Score: 2, Informative

    The smaller feature sizes bring power savings as well. So they're taking the server of yesteryear and putting it in your pocket. They're delivering the technology that'll bring the next billion users online because those folks don't have the watts to burn that we do.

    They're also working to solve the whole I/O problem with servers that happens when you get too much processing power in one box.

    In fact, they're pretty well focused on not just learning new things and creating new products, but in delivering new technologies that improve the way we work and live. And then letting go of it so we can figure new ways to use it that haven't occurred to them.

    That's so different from the next story down where another company is getting raked over the coals for dumping money into R&D, because that other company is so famous for clinging to every ounce of leverage they can get out of every vague interpretation or use of their innovations and so toxic to deal with that they could deliver an all electric hovercraft that cured cancer and nobody would want to partner with them.

    Sweet.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  25. That's ridiculous by tjstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    RSA is a problem that is much more simply stated than landing a man on the moon. You only say landing a man on the moon is easy because it was done. It was the culmination of many, many years of research to do it and it requires a lot of risk management and luck to do it. You say mathematically that landing a rocket on the moon is easier than protein folding, but try a realistic computer model of the effects of fuel spray and burn inside the combustion chamber.

    --
    This is my sig.
  26. Except that the rockets are a bitch by tjstork · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because space travel is mathematically dead simple

    It's only dead simple if you have a rocket that works. Design one of those? If it were so easy, SpaceX would have people up there by now, and I don't even know if they have their first orbit yet.

    --
    This is my sig.
  27. You havn't read Bruhn by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually, space travel is very complex. The only "simple" part about it is that, for two body motion and the limits of our ability to control thrutser force and duration, there are explicit solutions to the differential equations. The brain power behind the programming is immensely difficult, but once coded the computational power needed is not excessive.

    More to the point, all the pencil and paper math HAD to be done to make the available processors capable of performing the operations. The fact that they had slide rules indicates that the complexity of the brain work was immense to reduce the solution set to something that can be solved near-real-time on a slide rule. If the same mission were done today, we'd have none of this higher math involved. With the available processor power, it would be a brute force numerical solution. That's what most video codecs are, in essence, is a numerical solution to an equation with known boundary conditions. The more compression you want, the less exact the solution is (And hence the compression artifacts).

    Short of computationally intensive activities like video decoding, it shouldn't take much processor power to browse the web. It only does because it's faster (from a programmers time) to do things with brute force than to slim them down. It shouldn't require 250-500+ separate requests to open a page, and there shouldn't be 200kB of formatting for a page which contains - maybe - 5kB of text. That's why Skyfire works so fast on cell phones - there's so much crap in HTML pages now, and so many requests, that its faster to make a VGA snapshot of a page and load that as a damned image than it is to download the actual page.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?