Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Intel Promises Revolutionary 22nm Technology

Last response: in News comments
Share
April 20, 2011 10:06:08 PM

technology is moving too fast, let me catch up
Score
0
April 20, 2011 10:12:05 PM

amd is just dust in the wind
Score
-1
Related resources
April 20, 2011 10:12:08 PM

14nm? Don't you mean 16nm, and then later, 11nm for CPUs?

GPU lithography in the industry is different (40nm, 28nm, ..)
Score
-1
April 20, 2011 10:19:17 PM

Sweet, more transistors on the silicon equals more fun =D
Score
1
April 20, 2011 10:32:54 PM

Going to start my "flux capacitor" case mod for our up and coming friends.
Score
1
April 20, 2011 10:34:15 PM

Man, AMD is just now getting into 32nm, and Intel's already got 22nm planned out.
Score
1
April 20, 2011 10:34:55 PM

hmm my 920 is still good at 3.6Ghz with 12 GB's of 777-18 1456mhz should last me quite awhile.. though my HD 5870 will need to be bumped up to 7K series to do BF3 at a good FPS :D  but I can't wait to upgrade when I do.. probably will be 16 physical core and 32 logical cores at 5 Ghz stock with ddr4 out and about ^_^..
Score
-1
April 20, 2011 10:35:37 PM

What about quantum tunneling. Wont the silicon atom loose electrons in the processing below 16 nm?
Score
1
April 20, 2011 10:39:39 PM

Will probably mean cheaper CPU but not necessarily faster in term of average performance.
Score
0
April 20, 2011 10:48:19 PM

That's some serious money just for R&D. Once Graphene kicks in, developed will feel like a full on sprint compared to the running pace it is now. Fun times ahead... :D 
Score
1
April 20, 2011 11:08:29 PM

"We don't hear Intel using this word very often and if it does, then there is usually a good reason why it does."

What are you talking about--they always say that and it's mostly hype. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it will be good stuff, but don't blow it out of proportion. Dump the x86--then I'll be impressed.
Score
1
April 20, 2011 11:13:50 PM

Maybe finally we'll be drinking out of round cups, but maybe if Starbucks makes hexagon ones we won't think the games today are just games :
Score
0
April 20, 2011 11:21:06 PM

to be fair, AMD has 28nm planned for 2012, but intel is moving full speed ahead.

Should be very interesting to see just how much power CPU's chew up in 4-5 years, nevermind the blistering performance =D
Score
1
April 20, 2011 11:22:39 PM

There's a very good reason he used that word. But if he can't say anything, then I'm pretty sure I can't, either.
Score
2
April 20, 2011 11:35:35 PM

stevo777"We don't hear Intel using this word very often and if it does, then there is usually a good reason why it does."What are you talking about--they always say that and it's mostly hype. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it will be good stuff, but don't blow it out of proportion. Dump the x86--then I'll be impressed.

+1
Score
0
April 21, 2011 12:07:28 AM

Revolutionary profits, I see. I bet the final products won't be any faster than the current except for those willing to spend a grand.
Score
0
April 21, 2011 12:13:47 AM

Funny thing is, it doesn't matter what they bring to the table if current gen can keep up with the work.

Intel better focus on faster software development for those "technologies" they mention, to actually see the light of day.

Why not give a hand to game developers so they actually USE those features, to core programs (browsers, Open/LibreOffice, for instance) that people use on a daily basis. I know it's a delicate balance, but if they don't shift and move the waters, the fish are gonna move to another pound (ARM is getting so close to satisfy the "core" needs I'm telling).

Wake up Intel, and also AMD.

Cheers!
Score
1
Anonymous
April 21, 2011 12:15:56 AM

Wait a second, Ivy Bridge is suppose to just be Sandy bridge on a 22nm die. Intel must be talking about the next generation 22nm.
Score
0
April 21, 2011 12:32:35 AM

You know as much as I like that Intel is moving forward with bigger and better, frankly right now I would rather be AMD. Whoa, dude AMD sucks you may say but look at the facts and the money. Currently mobile and low-power tablets/netbooks are the rage- you don't see the news talking about the release of Sandy Bridge you see them talking about the release of the iPad. Most people won't spend the money on an i7- they'll spend money on mobile tablets that they can show off so they can say I'm better than you because I have the latest overpriced peice-of-crap. AMD capitalizes in this specific area. Sure their high-end processors are two-gens behind but look at their mobile/low-power division where the true money is at (aka brain-dead consumers). They have fantastic APUs out that murder Atom/nVidia combos and they're getting better every day. Sure it's nice to have the faster processors but most people don't know what an i5 is (most would probably guess it's from Apple). Wake up and smell the coffee Intel- the world doesn't want boxy towers anymore they want stylish and mobile even at a huge sacrifice in performance (all they're doing is playing Angry Birds anyway). The company that is able to take this sector of the market wil be the true victor even if they are five-generations behind in high-end CPUs.
Score
2
April 21, 2011 12:37:01 AM

Awful lot of Intel hate going on here.
Personally, I love Intel for constantly pushing the envelope on tech and bringing out new stuff way before anyone else could. If it weren't for Intel, AMD would still be at 90nm manufacturing. Nor would they have put CPU and GPU on the same silicon like Intel. They simply aren't innovative, even if they are cheaper. But a slightly higher price tag is the price you pay to fund innovation at its finest (i.e. Intel's R&D budget).
Score
-1
April 21, 2011 1:12:21 AM

burnley14Nor would they have put CPU and GPU on the same silicon like Intel. They simply aren't innovative, even if they are cheaper. But a slightly higher price tag is the price you pay to fund innovation at its finest (i.e. Intel's R&D budget).


What are you talking about? AMD came up with this concept. Intel just made a half-assed product that kind of look like it and released faster. Intel doesn't really have CPU+GPU, they just glued both next to each other.
Score
0
Anonymous
April 21, 2011 1:25:20 AM

@burnley14

"....Nor would they have put CPU and GPU on the same silicon like Intel"

what are you smoking, fusion was in the works well before intel decided they would try the same, intel got there faster because they got a ridiculous R&D budget and yet still managed to produce the mess that is GMA, pretty sure intel was pushing the tech envelope just before sledgehammer came along too, in fact they were so innovative they produced the first 64bit CPU right, and the first chip with L2 on die cache too right, excellent innovation there
Score
1
April 21, 2011 1:57:25 AM

@burnley14
You sure are ignorant.
It was really AMD's idea of having an on-die GPU when they bought over ATI to bring fusion products to the market.
If it weren't for AMD, you'd probably be paying for $400 for your i5 2500 and well above $1000 for your i7 2600.
Score
1
April 21, 2011 3:16:07 AM

Things are just unfair sometimes - for AMD. Either way, I'll support them.
Score
1
April 21, 2011 3:21:24 AM

I can't help but feel a bit screwed when a new "break-through" in die size comes out, not only do they get released like clockwork but they set release dates years in advance. For example:

Before (32nm) sandy bridge was released we knew about (22nm) Ivy bridge & (16nm) Haswell. It just seems we're getting the technology that they want us to purchase next rather than the best they can manufacturer.
Score
0
April 21, 2011 3:59:20 AM

dcoI can't help but feel a bit screwed when a new "break-through" in die size comes out, not only do they get released like clockwork but they set release dates years in advance. For example:Before (32nm) sandy bridge was released we knew about (22nm) Ivy bridge & (16nm) Haswell. It just seems we're getting the technology that they want us to purchase next rather than the best they can manufacturer.


No, you just don't know the difference between R&D/Prototyping and shipping.
Score
0
April 21, 2011 4:00:35 AM

People don't realize not to long ago AMD stomped all over Intel. AMD processors where priced at ~1,000 and people bought them because they where the best. Tables turn. Trends folks.. Trends.
Score
1
April 21, 2011 4:12:55 AM

sinfulpotatoPeople don't realize not to long ago AMD stomped all over Intel. AMD processors where priced at ~1,000 and people bought them because they where the best. Tables turn. Trends folks.. Trends.

Server processors, right? Now go check the prices of Intel for servers.
Score
1
April 21, 2011 4:23:41 AM

K2N haterServer processors, right? Now go check the prices of Intel for servers.


I don't follow server tech. I'm talking about the Athlon Processor. Completely blindsided Intel.
Score
-1
April 21, 2011 4:37:43 AM

11796pcsYou know as much as I like that Intel is moving forward with bigger and better, frankly right now I would rather be AMD. Whoa, dude AMD sucks you may say but look at the facts and the money. Currently mobile and low-power tablets/netbooks are the rage- you don't see the news talking about the release of Sandy Bridge you see them talking about the release of the iPad. Most people won't spend the money on an i7- they'll spend money on mobile tablets that they can show off so they can say I'm better than you because I have the latest overpriced peice-of-crap. AMD capitalizes in this specific area. Sure their high-end processors are two-gens behind but look at their mobile/low-power division where the true money is at (aka brain-dead consumers). They have fantastic APUs out that murder Atom/nVidia combos and they're getting better every day. Sure it's nice to have the faster processors but most people don't know what an i5 is (most would probably guess it's from Apple). Wake up and smell the coffee Intel- the world doesn't want boxy towers anymore they want stylish and mobile even at a huge sacrifice in performance (all they're doing is playing Angry Birds anyway). The company that is able to take this sector of the market wil be the true victor even if they are five-generations behind in high-end CPUs.


Intel's mobile processors are "insanely great" compared to AMD's products right now. However I would say that for my next laptop purchase (perhaps 5+ years in the future), I'd buy AMD because by then computing power will be so insane by then and I like to support AMD.

I'm looking forward to Bulldozer and hope it can get some high-end marketshare back to AMD

My dual core 2.875GHZ C2D Penryn laptop is plenty fast as it is.
Score
0
April 21, 2011 4:51:36 AM

Everybody seems to be missing the point - the revolutionary promise is about the technology, not the CPU features. Like Intel's 45 nm process brought High-K dielectric into the picture and that was revolutionary. Now everybody has it, but at the time it secured Intel's process leadership.

We can speculate all we want of course. My hope is significant reduction in the current needed to switch transistor states. That would dramatically reduce power consumption for the chip when active. Or alternatively allow for layered silicon thus doubling or even tripling the number of transistors for the same thermal envelope.
Score
1
April 21, 2011 6:09:43 AM

Problem is that "we" will always want faster and faster cpu's; even if there are only a handful of apps that will even slow down today's cpu's (HD encoding, 3d rendering, etc). Sure these newer more powerful chips are an easy sell for servers of course lower power consumption and less heat are always great for mobile devices.

I just think that at some point software is going to have a really hard time justifying more and more powerful hardware (Except games. Those will need more power for a WHILE:) . At some point though, the avg consumer won't be able to tell between a 24 core 5Ghz cpu and a 128 core 12Ghz cpu. Then the power user won't be able to tell either(They'll claim they can tell between .00056 seconds and .00037 seconds lmao).

I hope this happens later than sooner and we can keep pushing forward. Anyway, this scenario just worries me. Kudos to Intel forward and I hope they keep up the pace!!

AMD. I love u, but get it together.
Score
1
April 21, 2011 6:48:23 AM

intel, intel, everywhere, and not a AMD processor to compete...
Score
1
April 21, 2011 7:11:17 AM

I'm just going to take a stab in the dark and guess the new process will be silicon-on-insulator(SOI) or something similar. I think Intel has expected this transition, being necessary as transistors keep shrinking.

If I'm correct, this would be far from revolutionary as AMD has used SOI tech for a while, while Intel has criticized it. I don't pretend to be an expert in this subject, so please correct me if I'm talking out my a$$.
Score
0
April 21, 2011 9:04:03 AM

man i wonder what i will be buying when i get ready for next upgrade.
my Phenom II X2 555 is not even 2 years old, and still there is no software or game that i use that runs this processor on 100%. and i have finished cod4, crysis, civ 5, and waiting to finish of crysis 2.
by the time i have enough money saved to upgrade again , i wonder what the market will be like.....

and the reason I hate Intel is because, sandy bridge is here, and still when i go to the IT market, the dealers try to pawn off Intel Core 2 duo E7500. at the same rate they were when they were released to the market. It doesnt make sense why a 4 - 5 year old product is still being sold at its orignal price point. and i find dealers trying to convince me that core 2 duo is the best processor in the market and that sandy bridge is just something that is passing through. (maybe thats the truth) but still intel should atleast either kill the old products completely or slow down the upgrades, OR kill the price point so that I wont have to be loyal to AMD. i make computers in the low budget and mid budget market of India. most of the potential customers dont care if there is a Core 2 duo in their PC or its a Core i3/5. they only care if its Intel or AMD. and here Amd means cheap computer and Intel means costly computer. (even if its a Celeron).

Score
0
a b å Intel
April 21, 2011 11:04:56 AM

Now is the time to really start serious work on speech recognition.
Score
1
April 21, 2011 1:30:48 PM

Games are the kind of application that needs real time strong processing power. Video editing would allow more fluidity while working with a more powerful CPU but current level is good enough as it is, and the extra features are done in the background on the other cores while giving the main interface the snappy feel it needs to get the work done. The final conversion time is something that can wait, that the user can stand and do something else, or that, lucky multi core but even on single core low priority could be done too, the user can do something else, even another video editing, save the project and batch the projects later or queue them for conversion as soon as the cores or the GPGPU are free.
So, with users being happy with little generally (as mentioned here earlier: angry birds), with demanding work needs being met already, Intel and Microsoft need to focus on games. Microsoft too was used to "bigger and better" business model. As much as they are not admitting it, AMD and Nvidia too are not in proper balance for the users being fine with little computation power for ALL their computation needs.
Microsoft is pushing the "live on the internet" way, their social network type of games with powerful 3D (depending on viewpoint) is one step in the direction the future (good or bad future depends on viewpoint too). For tech to advance, the need for it must be created. Going heavier and heavier in OS is not the way to do it. Going heavier and heavier in games will appeal to fewer and fewer people, and those people generally are smart enough to choose their life.
Preying on the social for the "more and more power" is the future. The cloud will be rendered locally but the data will be online always. Ideal for Microsoft to control the data, ideal for Intel for users to change computers and still have the same "workspace", or entertainment space, just rendered at higher resolution and more graphical details, etc.
Score
0
April 21, 2011 1:31:06 PM

wasabiman123goddam, my i7 980X better still max out bf3 or I'll be pissed, f technology xDDD

No need to blaspheme.
Score
0
April 21, 2011 2:06:35 PM

maddy143ded....my Phenom II X2 555 is not even 2 years old, and still there is no software or game that i use that runs this processor on 100%. and i have finished cod4, crysis, civ 5, and waiting to finish of crysis 2.
.....and the reason I hate Intel is because, sandy bridge is here, and still when i go to the IT market, the dealers try to pawn off Intel Core 2 duo E7500. at the same rate they were when they were released to the market. It doesnt make sense why a 4 - 5 year old product is still being sold at its orignal price point. and i find dealers trying to convince me that core 2 duo is the best processor in the market and that sandy bridge is just something that is passing through. (maybe thats the truth) but still intel should atleast either kill the old products completely or slow down the upgrades, OR kill the price point so that I wont have to be loyal to AMD. ...cheap computer and Intel means costly computer. (even if its a Celeron).


Nothing has to use your processor 100% to show that your processor is outdated. silentpcreview has a perfect article that shows the performance of the sandy bridge core i3 vs the 565 and 555. Yes, in the price arena, amd has intel beat for budget computing. The problem with budget builds is that the margins are so low, Intel has chosen to not compete in the space, and AMD wants market share so badly they've dropped their prices so low they can barely stay in business. An AMD 555+cheapest MB here in the US would be $90+$45=$135 total. A Core i3-2100 + cheapest MB is $125+$60=$185. For that extra $50 though, you get a processor that is on average, more that 33% faster than the AMD X2 555 chip on practically everything and uses almost 50% less power on average.
It isn't Intel's fault that the country where you live is not a prime market for mid to high end cpu's. You said yourself that people there are most cost conscious. Which means that mid to high end parts sit on the shelf, hence the computer dealer having to try to sell stuff he already has.
Still don't understand the anti-Intel sentiment, if you knew anything about the history of the two companies, the only reason AMD exists to compete in the space was because of an overreaching arbitration that AMD got back in the 80's. Intel has been doing everything in it's power since to squash them, and rightfully so.
Score
0
April 21, 2011 2:12:17 PM

glasses free 3D, voice and face recognition, better displays. Flat panel displays need to ramp up resolution by a factor of ten. This will use up lots of computing power. Why do I say more resolution when we already have more than the human eye can perceive? because of 3D. For glasses free 3D, a series of cameras must locate and track your eyes and create two pictures one for each eye. If there are 5 people in 5 different locations in the room watching the same display, there are ten different eyes to track and ten different pictures to display simultaneously on the same flat panel. Effective resolution will be cut down to 1/10th.

The internet needs to be up-converted to 3D as well. More computing power used up.
Score
1
April 21, 2011 2:17:18 PM

wasabiman123goddam, my i7 980X better still max out bf3 or I'll be pissed, f technology xDDD


Sorry to tell you but my 300$ 2600K @4.8GHz already kick your 980x in the balls.
Score
1
April 21, 2011 2:23:34 PM

"zzzzzzz! zzzzz! zzzzzzz" huh!
Score
-1
April 21, 2011 3:02:18 PM

ngoyStill don't understand the anti-Intel sentiment, if you knew anything about the history of the two companies, the only reason AMD exists to compete in the space was because of an overreaching arbitration that AMD got back in the 80's. Intel has been doing everything in it's power since to squash them, and rightfully so.


Yet a company with Intel's resources can't do so without breaking the law. Intel paid the price, albeit a very small one, for trying to illegally push AMD out of the market, and rightfully so. And, like someone else mentioned here earlier, you should be thankful for AMD's existence, being that processors are cheaper and more advanced than otherwise would be the case.
Score
0
April 21, 2011 3:06:38 PM

silverblueYet a company with Intel's resources can't do so without breaking the law. Intel paid the price, albeit a very small one, for trying to illegally push AMD out of the market, and rightfully so. And, like someone else mentioned here earlier, you should be thankful for AMD's existence, being that processors are cheaper and more advanced than otherwise would be the case.


AMD will always be in this market, Intel can not squash them. Higher powers will not allow it. AMD will have money pumped in from somewhere.
Score
1
April 21, 2011 3:16:21 PM

ngoy An AMD 555+cheapest MB here in the US would be $90+$45=$135 total. A Core i3-2100 + cheapest MB is $125+$60=$185. For that extra $50 though, you get a processor that is on average, more that 33% faster than the AMD X2 555 chip on practically everything and uses almost 50% less power on average.It isn't Intel's fault that the country where you live is not a prime market for mid to high end cpu's. You said yourself that people there are most cost conscious. Which means that mid to high end parts sit on the shelf, hence the computer dealer having to try to sell stuff he already has.


Why get a 555 when you can get an Athlon II X4 that will run rings around the 555 for a similar price? If your reason for owning a computer extends beyond gaming, an Athlon II X4 will be superior to the Phenom II X2 regardless of the absence of L3 cache. The ideal scenario for the Athlon II X4 would be working with video creation, and if you're throwing properly threaded software at your PC, the Athlon II X4 makes sense, especially for the price. maddy could spend a small amount of money on a processor upgrade and keep the rest of that setup the same, or (s)he could fork out for an Intel processor and motherboard; will the performance boost be worth the money? Depends on the usage model.
Score
-1
Anonymous
April 21, 2011 6:25:19 PM

Intel was able to make Pentium 4 3.8GHz in 2004 with 90nm technology with only 115W TDP. But stupid customers prefered pathetic athlons with lower TDP so intel started making pathetic core2. Now they can make i7 3.8GHz with 95W TDP and customers are happy. I wish nVidia did CPU. They would do 10GHz CPU with 1kW TDP and profesionals would be happy, like we are with GTX 590. Speed requires power!
Score
-2
April 21, 2011 6:37:31 PM

ngoyNothing has to use your processor 100% to show that your processor is outdated. silentpcreview has a perfect article that shows the performance of the sandy bridge core i3 vs the 565 and 555. Yes, in the price arena, amd has intel beat for budget computing. The problem with budget builds is that the margins are so low, Intel has chosen to not compete in the space, and AMD wants market share so badly they've dropped their prices so low they can barely stay in business. An AMD 555+cheapest MB here in the US would be $90+$45=$135 total. A Core i3-2100 + cheapest MB is $125+$60=$185. For that extra $50 though, you get a processor that is on average, more that 33% faster than the AMD X2 555 chip on practically everything and uses almost 50% less power on average.It isn't Intel's fault that the country where you live is not a prime market for mid to high end cpu's. You said yourself that people there are most cost conscious. Which means that mid to high end parts sit on the shelf, hence the computer dealer having to try to sell stuff he already has.Still don't understand the anti-Intel sentiment, if you knew anything about the history of the two companies, the only reason AMD exists to compete in the space was because of an overreaching arbitration that AMD got back in the 80's. Intel has been doing everything in it's power since to squash them, and rightfully so.


my friend I am sorry if my previous comment mislead u. I don't hate Intel because it is developing so fast. I hate intel because they either don't kill their old technology or dont make it cheaper when something new comes in at that price point.
for eg. Core 2 Duo E7500. vs Core i3 2100. both of them are at nearly the same price point (at least here in India). but the technology is 5 years apart. because of that the dealers still keep trying to sell the old tech to get better margins on the motherboards and other parts or they are trying to sell off their old stock.
they even go so far as to not sell the new tech at all, which leads to few dealers having a monopoly on the new technology, and having higher rates then the global average.
in the local market (the one that serves the whole of Mumbai) dealers even go so far as to refuse selling Core i3 2100 alone. if I want to buy it from most of the dealers then I have to pair it with H61 chipset only. otherwise they wont sell it. if I want H67 chipset i have to buy i5 2400 +. and for i7 i have to buy P67. they even go a step further and try to convince me that i3 2100 is not compatible with H67 or P67 chipset. (and they know that I am a computer HW Engineer).
now if intel had reduced the price range of its core 2 duo lineup then it would be easy to ignore these idiots as what product i am trying to buy would be in a different price range altogether. so they wouldn't try to pawn off their dead stock on to customers in the guise of they being same technology.

that said, AMD doesn't disappoint me because whenever they have new product they make sure to keep reducing the price tag of the old product, to keep it attractive.

and for "silverblue"
Quote:
Why get a 555 when you can get an Athlon II X4 that will run rings around the 555 for a similar price? If your reason for owning a computer extends beyond gaming, an Athlon II X4 will be superior to the Phenom II X2 regardless of the absence of L3 cache. The ideal scenario for the Athlon II X4 would be working with video creation, and if you're throwing properly threaded software at your PC, the Athlon II X4 makes sense, especially for the price. maddy could spend a small amount of money on a processor upgrade and keep the rest of that setup the same, or (s)he could fork out for an Intel processor and motherboard; will the performance boost be worth the money? Depends on the usage model.


my 555 can beat any processor from AMD below Phenom II X4 955, because it is one of the first manufactured pieces in that series. that means it gave me sucessfull unlock to B55. and i don't care about the warranty as long as the processor lasts for 3 years.( and i believe it will because of the low workload on it) and don't tell me that its a luck of draw. because most of the successful unlocks belong to the first few weeks of manufacturing, usually. its performance is enough to beat core i3 2100/2120. also if the CPU does end up dieng on me because of the unlock, then I can just buy a cheap athlon II x4 (assuming my motherboard has not been harmed) and use it till either Bulldozer or Ivy bridge arrive.

and if someone comments about power savings i will say only one thing, if you are changing your CPU/Mobo every year to save power then you are a fool because you dont take into account the money you spent on the new CPU/Mobo. it is my belief that you should use your current processor until you find that your processor is running above 60% for more then half the time your computer is on.
if you reach that point then its time to get a new processor, because you are going to end up having a CPU bottle neck sooner rather then latter.
Score
0
April 21, 2011 6:43:35 PM

You invalidated your argument when you denounced Core 2 as being inferior to the Pentium 4. Core 2 is vastly superior clock-for-clock than the P4. It would take a 5.2 GHz P4 to keep up with the Athlon64 FX55 which runs at 2.6GHz. Sadly, single-core CPUs, HyperThreading or no HyperThreading, don't cut it these days, nor do 200W TDPs.
Score
0
April 21, 2011 6:59:54 PM

silverblueYou invalidated your argument when you denounced Core 2 as being inferior to the Pentium 4. Core 2 is vastly superior clock-for-clock than the P4. It would take a 5.2 GHz P4 to keep up with the Athlon64 FX55 which runs at 2.6GHz. Sadly, single-core CPUs, HyperThreading or no HyperThreading, don't cut it these days, nor do 200W TDPs.

I guess he was joking. The core i7 is 4c 95 W even if they were on par performance wise per core per GHz.
Score
0
!