1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Intel details 10nm, 7nm, 5nm process roadmap

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by brumgrunt, 14 May 2012.

  1. .//TuNdRa

    .//TuNdRa Resident Bulldozer Guru

    Joined:
    12 Feb 2011
    Posts:
    4,042
    Likes Received:
    109
    But saying it like that is like saying "This car is amazing. it will explode and burst into flames if run for more than a certain time, but Amazing up until then." - Everything must be taken into account when saying things like that. Otherwise I could claim my Bulldozer is an amazing chip, crappy performance, and awful heat issues nonwithstanding, simply because it can mow-through 256bit decryption faster than Sandy Bridge processors.
     
  2. MrGumby

    MrGumby CPC 464 User

    Joined:
    27 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    1,437
    Likes Received:
    30
    IB cant be classed as epic. Surely that word implies a much bigger jump in performance. Maybe we can revist that word when Haswell shows up.
     
  3. Jezcentral

    Jezcentral Member

    Joined:
    7 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    127
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course!

    *taps nose knowingly*
     
  4. thehippoz

    thehippoz New Member

    Joined:
    19 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    5,780
    Likes Received:
    174
    forget moores law.. murphys law and the snuffaluffagus is what I'm talking about
     
  5. benji2412

    benji2412 <insert message here>

    Joined:
    25 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    1,037
    Likes Received:
    24
    Forgive me if this is wrong, but bearing in mind quantum tunneling occurs through barriers of 1.23nm, will this limit the size of current semiconductor technology?
     
  6. noizdaemon666

    noizdaemon666 I'm Od, Therefore I Pwn

    Joined:
    15 Jun 2010
    Posts:
    5,579
    Likes Received:
    476
    I know I read the article ;) That's still hotter than SB though.

    SB was epic due to the massive increase in performance over Lynnfield and Nehalem. IB is not epic due to the heat increase and minimal performance increase.
     
  7. John_T

    John_T Member

    Joined:
    3 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    532
    Likes Received:
    21
    Now I, like most people on this site, am a fiddler by nature. I'll happily swap components in and out of my PC all day long. I'll swap CPU HSF's on and off & muck about experimenting with different TIMS - I'll change my GPU's HSF. No problem. I'll even, at a push, do a little light modding.

    But bugger me: I absolutely draw the line at sawing up my brand new CPU to put better quality TIM INSIDE the processor case! Whatever Intel/AMD decide to do on that point, I'm afraid I for one am stuck with it... :)
     
  8. John_T

    John_T Member

    Joined:
    3 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    532
    Likes Received:
    21
    Good luck to anyone who wants to give it crack though!
     
  9. Beasteh

    Beasteh New Member

    Joined:
    18 Feb 2012
    Posts:
    278
    Likes Received:
    10
    I remember the old Athlon XP chips that had no heatspreader... Crushing your core was a real concern. Good times?

    By the sounds of things, Intel are sticking with silicon. It's a risky strategy: about 5 years ago it was said (and it's mentioned in the article, too) that 10nm was the limit, and we could go no further. It'll be interesting to see what Intel has up its sleeves to reach 5nm!
     
  10. Showerhead

    Showerhead New Member

    Joined:
    11 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    33
    What on earth are intel using as TIM that a simple change of compound gives that big a difference.
     
  11. noizdaemon666

    noizdaemon666 I'm Od, Therefore I Pwn

    Joined:
    15 Jun 2010
    Posts:
    5,579
    Likes Received:
    476
    Concrete ;)
     
  12. Gradius

    Gradius IT Consultant

    Joined:
    3 Feb 2009
    Posts:
    284
    Likes Received:
    1
    5nm! Holy cow!
     
  13. Siwini

    Siwini What is 4+no.5?

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2010
    Posts:
    617
    Likes Received:
    33
    ...and that's where 666 chips comes in...

    Efficiency will improve and the size shrink, pretty soon they’ll get it down to where a human single organism can power up the processor.
     
    Last edited: 15 May 2012
  14. fluxtatic

    fluxtatic New Member

    Joined:
    25 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    507
    Likes Received:
    5
    Sorry, but I have to take issue with this statement: "The majority of the industry is working on a 22nm process at present..." No, Intel is at 22nm. Nobody else is. Nobody in desktop, nobody in mobile. Maybe if you mean it as a bit of cheerleading in that Intel holds 90% or better of desktop marketshare, OK. But the statement itself (especially without clarifying "industry") is patently wrong.

    IB isn't epic - SB was. I'm very curious to see how Haswell works out. Beyond that? Could be that this is just a bit of propaganda Intel let leak. They're at 22, and they're going to be at less than half that in three years? I've got my doubts.
     
  15. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    14,007
    Likes Received:
    2,955
    Note "working on" - not "in production on," "working on." In other words (and if I'd been more careful with my phrasing) "The majority of the industry is working towards a 22nm process at present," except for Intel which is already there.
     
    Last edited: 15 May 2012
  16. Elton

    Elton Officially a Whisky Nerd

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    8,575
    Likes Received:
    189
    Why not make the die larger? Yeah that would reduce die farming and decrease efficiency, but surely more space to work on it (despite a smaller process) should be easier no?

    Unless I'm simplifying it too much. Oh wait I am, there's also considerations of defective transistors in terms of density...
     
  17. fluxtatic

    fluxtatic New Member

    Joined:
    25 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    507
    Likes Received:
    5
    Fair enough. Can we chalk it up to you speaking "that funny English"? :p
     
  18. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    14,007
    Likes Received:
    2,955
    In the words of noted philosopher Ralph Wiggum: "Me fail English? That's unpossible!"
     
  19. wyx087

    wyx087 Homeworld 3 is happening!!

    Joined:
    15 Aug 2007
    Posts:
    10,983
    Likes Received:
    328
    yes, larger die => less yield, more chance of defective die and thus a lot higher production cost.

    from a business point of view, you'll want as small die as possible.
     
  20. mdshann

    mdshann New Member

    Joined:
    18 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think it's funny that everyone is complaining about heat issues. Let's see what happens if we take a stock IB heatsink and use it with a 3 Ghz Prescott at stock speeds! Sure the stock temperatures haven't really changed, but the equipment needed to cool the chip to the same temperature has most certainly changed! Used to be you would need a stock 2.5" thick aluminium cooler with a copper core to reach temps of 50c to 60c. The CPUs out now will do better than that with an aluminium and copper cored cooler that is about 5/8" thick! Case in point, the computer I am on now is a Pentium D 2.8 Ghz at stock speed with a stock cooler, the side panel is not present, and it is running at 60c with just a web browser open to this page. The i3 next to me is running at about 45c idle with the stock 5/8" cooler. Where's this heat issue? These processors are designed to withstand up to 110c without damage. We're nowhere near that at the moment.

    In my opinion, Intel is using a TIM because that's all that is needed. Sure, they could make the chips run cooler by using a different solution, but why would they? To a company like Intel, a few cents savings per chip will save them millions over the course of that chips manufacturing run time. In my experience TIM tends to last a good long time before it becomes an issue, maybe 8 or 10 years or so if the computer is kept relatively dust free. By that time, even your granny should be ready for a new computer.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page