Intel lays the base for 14nm chips in 2014, "to light a fire under" Apple and Samsung
1. squallz506 (banned) (Posts: 1075; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)
I must be a total geek. I'm pumped for 14nm.
2. Penny (Posts: 1625; Member since: 04 Feb 2011)
As somebody who likes to build PCs, I definitely appreciate Intel's ambitions in reducing the size of the die. While I don't expect desktop chips to keep pace with mobile chips in this regard, I look forward to smaller chips that offer more performance while reducing cost and power consumption.
Also, man I hope AMD plans to compete in some way. Not good for the industry if Intel goes from one major competitor to no major competitors (PC space, not mobile).
5. jove39 (Posts: 1668; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
Totally...intel need to shrink their power hungry (desktop...well...I dont care about desktop) notebook cpu. My i7 (its total power hog) notebook runs out of steam in an hour!
7. squallz506 (banned) (Posts: 1075; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)
my i3 runs for a solid 4hrs heavy use. 6 hrs airplane mode, power-saving mode and low brightness.
still cant wait to upgrade to an i7 pro though.
10. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
Im sure AMD has a plan. Intel and AMD seem to go back n forth on who is going to leap ahead of the other. AMD did it with the Athalon X2, and Intel did it with the core2duo (and is still doing it). I have faith that AMD has a rabbit in their hat.
Its amazing just how small they are getting. When I was young, my 8086 chip was like the size of my fist and now they are going to be not even as big as a finger nail, and of course they are like 50 million times stronger.
13. Victor.H (Posts: 606; Member since: 27 May 2011)
AMD officially quit the nm race, it's transitioning to 28nm as Intel goes further down to 22nm. So Intel wins there without a doubt. But it sure has got a lot going on otherwise - APUs and servers mostly.
23. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
AMD doesnt have nearly the money Intel does. AMD loses money more quarters than not.. they havent been doing well. So I guess they are just trying to squeeze every drop of juice they can out of the designs they come up with to stay competitive. They will reduce size sooner or later.. they will have to.. or they will be pretty much belly up.
Its kind of sad.. they were pulling slightly ahead of Intel for a while there but not only had intel caught up, they figured out how to do rings around AMD.
Thats one of the main reasons I think the first Intel mobile chip will be a failed mess, then in the 2nd and 3rd generations they come back with a vengance. They are arrogant and make mistakes, but they tend to only make them once.
I will keep rooting for AMD, but my money is going to the best bang for the buck. I'm a horsepower geek.. cant help it. :) Talk to me in dirty PFlops. :)
3. doubler86 (Posts: 320; Member since: 26 Jan 2011)
I think Intel should drop the name Atom. Every time I have talk to other people about it we always say when we here Atom Processor we think of that slow netbook.
16. beachguy757 (Posts: 7; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
i bet you dont know that atom processors can run 64 bit and also netbooks equipped with an atom cpu only come with 1 GB 800 MHz ram, so upgrading windows to 64 bit and adding ram the atom cpu actually runs quite well
22. doubler86 (Posts: 320; Member since: 26 Jan 2011)
Actually i've only ever seen netbooks run with 2GB of RAM. Still slow. Windows is too big of an OS for the original Atoms to handle from what I've seen. However these new Atom processors should be more than enough for an Android OS. We'll have to see. Don't get me wrong I love my intel i7 in the computer I built but when it comes to mobile world I hope they can make a big impact.
4. jove39 (Posts: 1668; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
Well...Its good that Intel is joining party with a bang...more competition...more benefit to user :)
6. pbui.818 (Posts: 78; Member since: 06 Feb 2012)
This article is total BS hype unfortunately. Intel is having problems with their "22nm" process and production of Ivy Bridge is behind schedule. The whole naming scheme for the process nodes is no longer legit. Even their "22nm with 3D trigates" isn't truly that scale. So, when they say they're moving faster than Moore predicted with 14nm and 8nm, it just isn't credible.
I hate to poopoo on this because, personally, I would love to see technology to keep moving quickly.
12. doubleD (Posts: 78; Member since: 13 Dec 2010)
Also, Moore's law says the transistors double every 18 months, not a year as the article states
17. beachguy757 (Posts: 7; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
i remember reading a long time ago that the current manufacturing techniques or processes run into problems when smaller than 16nm where the transistors gate is 5 nm. when shrunk further down electrons start leaking out of the transistors. But to be fair if in fact Intel claims they can do it keep in mind the transistors for chips being manufactured now were developed over a decade ago and have been tested and research since
21. beachguy757 (Posts: 7; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
I have also seen that Intel is buidling a new facility in arizona for its 14nm process and that article led me to this article
8. andro. (Posts: 1997; Member since: 16 Sep 2011)
This will no doubt fuel companies to improve their chip architecture but when intel introduces these chips their rivals will no doubt have something quite similar to release by then. They won't exactly be lighting a fire under the companies more so fighting fire with fire
9. ph00ny (Posts: 989; Member since: 26 May 2011)
i really hope that they push samsung. We all saw what happened when apple pushed samsung.
11. InspectorGadget80 (unregistered)
All i have to say is that CHIP IS DAMN SMALL
14. Bluesky02 (Posts: 1439; Member since: 05 Dec 2011)
With this move we'll see cheaper Ultrabooks on the way
15. pbui.818 (Posts: 78; Member since: 06 Feb 2012)
Think of Intel's 22nm as something akin to T-Mobile's 4G
18. beachguy757 (Posts: 7; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
not really, 4g isnt all that practical. 22nm chip will have slightly more power but a lot less energy consumption whereas 4g provides slightly more speed consuming more energy from your phone
24. pbui.818 (Posts: 78; Member since: 06 Feb 2012)
I meant that T-Mobile's 4G wouldn't be considered 4G by others.
25. beachguy757 (Posts: 7; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
@doubler86 The net books can run more than 2 GB ram and I don't think you understand that the OS runs from the hard drive through the ram. Running the netbook x64 windows 7 runs great keeping in mind it's not made to handle heavy multitasking but for the most part it'll keep up with core2duos 45nm.