Intel Promises Revolutionary 22nm Technology
Intel's CEO Paul Otellini attracted some interest during yesterday's earnings conference call when he told analysts that the next generation of 22 nm of processors will feature a "revolutionary" process technology.
We don't hear Intel using this word very often and if it does, then there is usually a good reason why it does.
"We remain on track to begin production on our 22-nanometer silicon process technology by the end of this year," Otellini said. This revolutionary technology will further distance Intel from the competition across all segments of computing." It took some time, but one analysts picked Otellini's note up and asked what would be so revolutionary about this technology, besides the fact that it drops from 32 to 22 nm. However, the CEO told Citigroup's Glen Yeung, that he really can't discuss the features and he would have to wait until the analyst day event in May.
So, was Otellini referring to just the process technology or the integration of more processor features as a whole? There was no further information, but Intel highlighted the fact that it has dramatically increased its capital expenditures and R&D spending to $10.2 billion this year. We should be expecting some big steps from Intel over the next 24 months.
The purpose apparently is a faster transition to 22 nm and later to 14 nm in an effort to keep its rivals at a distance and cash in on its process technology advantage. The company noted that its first smartphone processor Medfield will built in 32 nm and come to smartphones within 12 months. At 22 nm the desktop processor roadmap will "intercept" the smartphone processor roadmap and tablet/phone processors will move to 22 nm as well. The first Intel 22 nm processors are expected to be announced in Q4 of this year.
- How to Fix Any Computer... And Quietly Weep
- Samsung: A 2GHz Smartphone by 2012
- Seagate Takes Over Samsung's HDD for $1.375bn
- Samsung Challenges Intel For Chip Leadership
- Awesome RAGE, Prey 2 and Skyrim Screenshots
- ECGC 2011: Goodbye Physical, and Hello Cloud!
- Intel Patents 'Multiplying Two Numbers'
- Deals for April 19: Logitech G510 Keyboard $79
- Hooper: DOOM Fans Will Be Happy With DOOM 4
- Crash Bandicoot Mod Using CryEngine 2
- VIDEO: Minecraft CPU Has Memory, Performs Division
- Intel Reports Q1 Revenue of $12.9 billion
- Microsoft: No Tablet OS Until We Can Be Different
- What's Inside a BlackBerry PlayBook?
- McGee Focusing on F2P PC Games After Alice
- Ubuntu 11.04 Being Released Next Week
- Deals for April 21: 40'' Sharp AQUOS 120Hz $479
- First 2 Mass Effect 3 Screens Released
technology is moving too fast, let me catch up
amd is just dust in the wind
14nm? Don't you mean 16nm, and then later, 11nm for CPUs?
GPU lithography in the industry is different (40nm, 28nm, ..)
Sweet, more transistors on the silicon equals more fun =D
Going to start my "flux capacitor" case mod for our up and coming friends.
Man, AMD is just now getting into 32nm, and Intel's already got 22nm planned out.
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
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 ^_^..
What about quantum tunneling. Wont the silicon atom loose electrons in the processing below 16 nm?
Will probably mean cheaper CPU but not necessarily faster in term of average performance.
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...
"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.
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 :
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
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.
AMD is done as it pertains to the high end CPU market. They can't even keep up in the mid range market at this point.
"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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
@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
@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.
Things are just unfair sometimes - for AMD. Either way, I'll support them.
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.
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.
No, you just don't know the difference between R&D/Prototyping and shipping.
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.
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.
Server processors, right? Now go check the prices of Intel for servers.
Server 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.
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.
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.