Intel touts 45nm technology, upcoming architectures

[AppleInsider]

Presenting at the Intel Developer Forum in San Francisco on Tuesday, Intel boss Paul Otellini said the chipmaker plans to introduce new micro-architectures about every 2 years and remains on track to debut its first 45nm products during the second half of 2007.

45nm technology remains on track

Performance and energy efficiency "all start with the transistor" Otellini said, describing Intel's legacy of advancing Moore's Law and its industry-leading silicon technology and manufacturing capability.

Intel was the first to implement advanced 65nm silicon manufacturing technology in 2005, integrating power-saving features into the process that were critical to delivering power-efficiency at the transistor level. Otellini said the company is now officially shipping the majority of its processors on 65nm, before any other company had even shipped a single production unit.

Looking ahead, Intel's next-generation 45nm technology is on track for production in the second half of 2007 as planned, and Otellini disclosed for the first time that the company has fifteen 45nm products already in development across desktop, mobile, and enterprise segments.

The first of the 45nm products is on track to complete its design in the fourth quarter of this year, he said, adding that the company sports an extensive 45-nm factory network with more than 500,000 square feet of clean room space and more than $9 billion invested.

Construction of Intel Fab 32 in Arizon -- Clean Room Completed

Nehalem and Gesher architectures

Otellini estimated that the "cadence" of these manufacturing process technologies which follow Moore's Law, coupled with Intel's plans to introduce new micro-architectures about every 2 years, will result in significant performance-per-watt improvement over today's Core micro-architecture products by 2010.

He showed a chart that mapped out new micro-architectures coming in 2008 (code-named Nehalem and targeted at 45nm) followed by another in 2010 (code-named Gesher and targeted at 32nm). These new micro architectures will be developed by separate teams working in parallel, and targeted for intersection with specific future process technologies, he said.

Construction of Intel Fab 28 in Israel

"By the end of the decade we will deliver a 300 percent increase in performance per watt over today's processors," said Otellini. "This improved power and performance will enable developers and manufacturers to develop systems with incredibly exciting new capabilities."

To demonstrate how Moore's Law will continue well into the future with amazing potential, the Intel chief showed a new research prototype processor that has 80 floating point cores on a single die. The tiny silicon die on this experimental chip, just 300mm², is capable of achieving a Teraflop of performance, or 1 trillion floating point operations per second. He contrasted this with Intel's historic breakthrough 11 years ago with the world's first Teraflop supercomputer, a massive machine powered by nearly 10,000 Pentium Pro processors in more than 85 large cabinets occupying about 2,000 square feet.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[JoeAlamaiz]

Now im beginning to feel that i shouldnt have ordered my new Macbook Pro and wait for the teraflop mac...

hahaha

[bdj21ya]

Why hasn't Apple integrated this 80-core teraflop chip into their MacBook Pro's yet? If I don't see this 80 core Mac soon, I'm definitely going to purchase another brand's laptop just because of the processor, willfully ignorant of the fact that the "slower" Mac still performs all of my computing tasks quicker than the alternative machine.

[hmurchison]

I think I'm going to hold out on Mac purchases until Gesher is here. Mmmmm mmmmm 32mm mulicore goodness. And you only have to wait 3-4 yrs.

[TednDi]

Apple is DOOMED!!

[melgross]

Intel is so far ahead of AMD in process technology it's not funny.

AMD has to depend on others for help. Intel doesn't.

[deckard]

What can I say? BRAVO!!!!!

Originally Posted by bdj21ya

Why hasn't Apple integrated this 80-core teraflop chip into their MacBook Pro's yet? If I don't see this 80 core Mac soon, I'm definitely going to purchase another brand's laptop just because of the processor, willfully ignorant of the fact that the "slower" Mac still performs all of my computing tasks quicker than the alternative machine.

[Mike Eggleston]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

I think I'm going to hold out on Mac purchases until Gesher is here. Mmmmm mmmmm 32mm mulicore goodness. And you only have to wait 3-4 yrs.

Ironically, that is probably when I will be in need of a new machine. SWEET!!!

[Splinemodel]

Eagerly awaiting the IA64B overlords.

[Zandros]

Originally Posted by melgross

Intel is so far ahead of AMD in process technology it's not funny.

AMD has to depend on others for help. Intel doesn't.

What makes me worried about Intel's future is not the process technology or even the performance of the processors. It's the fact that AMD is tying multiple companies to its in house developed standards (Torrenza, PPC on Socket F, if it's true) and Intel is left behind. I don't think Intel carries sufficent weight now to stand against the combined weight of AMD, ATi and IBM. I hope I'm wrong.

[Programmer]

You're wrong.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Zandros

It's the fact that AMD is tying multiple companies to its in house developed standards (Torrenza, PPC on Socket F, if it's true)

PPC on Socket F? Where did you hear that? That sounds interesting, but I don't remember multiple architectures using the same processor pin-out complementing each other. The Athlon's EV6 bus was supposed to allow shared chipset development with the Alpha, but that never materialized, none of the Alpha's chipsets were used with Athlons that I remember, and the Athlon's chipsets simply weren't good enough for Alpha.

[Zandros]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

PPC on Socket F? Where did you hear that? That sounds interesting, but I don't remember multiple architectures using the same processor pin-out complementing each other. The Athlon's EV6 bus was supposed to allow shared chipset development with the Alpha, but that never materialized, none of the Alpha's chipsets were used with Athlons that I remember, and the Athlon's chipsets simply weren't good enough for Alpha.

Sorry, forgot to check the source of the article. Allegedly, it was Informationweek and the Register. Makes it somewhat less likely. (Not PPC by the way, should have been POWER7...)

@ Programmer: Thank you.

[godrifle]

How is 300mm^2 tiny? Well, in comparison to a 2000 sf room, yeah, but 300mm^2 is not small.

[Programmer]

Well the Cell is 221mm^2 and they are pushing that into consumer electronics devices. Plus if you have 80 cores on the die you'll get lots of chips you can sell with 79, 78, 77, 76, ... cores.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by godrifle

How is 300mm^2 tiny? Well, in comparison to a 2000 sf room, yeah, but 300mm^2 is not small.

It's a little large for a typical CPU die, but that wafer being held has about 80 of them.

[SpamSandwich]

Let's get all 80 of those chips connected and running. That would rock.

[skitzogreg]

These announcements make dual-core chips sound like the pentium33 in terms of being aged out.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Zandros

What makes me worried about Intel's future is not the process technology or even the performance of the processors. It's the fact that AMD is tying multiple companies to its in house developed standards (Torrenza, PPC on Socket F, if it's true) and Intel is left behind. I don't think Intel carries sufficent weight now to stand against the combined weight of AMD, ATi and IBM. I hope I'm wrong.

I agree with Programmer on this one. You are wrong.

[sunilraman]

So how will this increase my FPS? (frags per second)

[fuyutsuki]

Intel, quit making me drool, I haven't even gotten my first x86 Mac yet and you're tantalising me with this!* When are you going to get sluggish and incompetent like Motorola and let us have one update per year which is just a few MHz on the clock?* You're making me feel weird!

[sunilraman]

Originally Posted by melgross

Intel is so far ahead of AMD in process technology it's not funny...

It's kind of scary teh vengeance in which Intel struck(is striking) back after the Athlons and Semprons sorely whipped their a$$Es for a few years there.

Good on the Israelis. Now if the middle east doesn't blow up in a giant nuclearfirestorm in the next 10 years, we'll have nice CPUs.

[sunilraman]

Originally Posted by fuyutsuki

Intel, quit making me drool, I haven't even gotten my first x86 Mac yet and you're tantalising me with this!* When are you going to get sluggish and incompetent like Motorola and let us have one update per year which is just a few MHz on the clock?* You're making me feel weird! :-P

ROFLMAO ... seriously, my head is exploding already. Soon Apple.Com will look like TomsHardware.Com. One new CPU every week. This week, ...

[sunilraman]

Originally Posted by fuyutsuki

Intel, quit making me drool, I haven't even gotten my first x86 Mac yet and you're tantalising me with this!* When are you going to get sluggish and incompetent like Motorola and let us have one update per year which is just a few MHz on the clock?* You're making me feel weird!

Don't worry, Macs will still have crappy/ limited choice of GPUS!!

[aegisdesign]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

It's a little large for a typical CPU die, but that wafer being held has about 80 of them.

Where's Ivor Catt when you need him ?....

[BenRoethig]

Originally Posted by sunilraman

Don't worry, Macs will still have crappy/ limited choice of GPUS!!

As long as Jobs is running the show.

[aegisdesign]

Originally Posted by sunilraman

Don't worry, Macs will still have crappy/ limited choice of GPUS!!

They don't. You just have a requirement on something most users do not have.

[sunilraman]

Ah, I just needed to bitch about GPUs for the sake of those who might chime in later. You know, let's get it out of the way...

[BenRoethig]

Uh, never mind I read CPU instead of GPU. Yeah, selection is pretty limited.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by aegisdesign

They don't. You just have a requirement on something most users do not have.

The choices are limited. That is a statement of fact. That fact has little to do with what anyone needs or wants.

[BenRoethig]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

The choices are limited. That is a statement of fact. That fact has little to do with what anyone needs or wants.

If you're a die hard mac user and expect Apple to make all the decisions for you, that's true. If you're not, it can be a deal breaker between switching and not switching. It could be a deal breaker for Mac users on the fence if the shipping version of Vista delivers just enough Mac.

[aegisdesign]

Originally Posted by BenRoethig

If you're a die hard mac user and expect Apple to make all the decisions for you, that's true. If you're not, it can be a deal breaker between switching and not switching. It could be a deal breaker for Mac users on the fence if the shipping version of Vista delivers just enough Mac.

Bollocks.

The supposition was that Apple only gave you "crappy/limited" choice.

That is untrue. They may give you "limited" choice but "crappy" is subjective. "Limited" is neither here nor there if it's perfectly adequate for the task at hand.

Of course, if you've your undercrackers in a bunch because OMG! Apple don't ship the XTX version, only the GT version of a card then you'll never be happy. It's like complaining your car ships with a T2 Garrett Turbocharger instead of the T5.

[jamezog]

So what was that I heard in another recent thread that Intel was going to max out at 4 cores???

Yeah, I wanna see that 80-core monster plugged in, too. One teraflop on a die smaller than an old LP (if godrifle has the right pic above). Have we ever come a long way!

I wonder which architecture it's on. If it's 45nm, I'd love to see it shrunk to 32nm - wouldn't be a whole lot bigger than a CD. I'll bet we'll seriously be seeing 16 (or more) cores on PC's by the end of the decade. Makes me want to wait another couple years before upgrading my Mac, unless Leopard ships with some new surprises.

[franksargent]

Originally Posted by aegisdesign

Bollocks.

The supposition was that Apple only gave you "crappy/limited" choice.

That is untrue. They may give you "limited" choice but "crappy" is subjective. "Limited" is neither here nor there if it's perfectly adequate for the task at hand.

Of course, if you've your undercrackers in a bunch because OMG! Apple don't ship the XTX version, only the GT version of a card then you'll never be happy. It's like complaining your car ships with a T2 Garrett Turbocharger instead of the T5.

You have got to be JOKING, right?

PCIE x16 GPU choices on the PC > 375 Many

versus

PCIE x16 GPU choices on the Mac = 3 Few

versus

PCIE x16 GPU 3rd party choices on the Mac = ZERO!

So yes, OBJECTIVELY Macs have < 1% of the choice that PCs have for PCIE GPU cards.

IMHO, that is not only LIMITED but severely CRAPPY!

Now play the same game with all PCIE cards on the PC versus all PCIE cards on the Mac, same result.

Software, same argument.

Price, same argument.

Finally, please show me a PCIE RT HD H.264 encoder card for the Mac, since Macs are supposted to be king-of-the-hill in DV/HDV.

[Mike Eggleston]

Originally Posted by franksargent

....
Software, same argument.

Price, same argument.
....

Are you serious about this argument here? Having been on the PC side of things, I can also vouch for the fact that there are tons more software choices out there than there are on the Mac. HOWEVER, this doesn't mean that they work worth a damn.

Prime example: BBEdit. King of the hill, and there are not many on the Mac side that are close in comparison. The closest on the PC side is EmEditor, and it is nowhere close to BBEdit. There are literally thousands of text editors out there over there, but none of them even come close.

Then there is the price argument. Apple's pricing on its computers is really competetive with the rest of the industry. However, people like to compare HP's and Dell's low end with Apple's low end, and say something really cute like "Why can't Apple's computers be $xxx since [HP|Dell|Sony|etc] is at that price point." It is a bad game to play, and also one that is slanted against Apple because they also have to pay for R&D costs, they also make sure none of their machines are truly crippled; which isn't the case on the PC side.

[franksargent]

Originally Posted by Mike Eggleston

Are you serious about this argument here? Having been on the PC side of things, I can also vouch for the fact that there are tons more software choices out there than there are on the Mac. HOWEVER, this doesn't mean that they work worth a damn.

Prime example: BBEdit. King of the hill, and there are not many on the Mac side that are close in comparison. The closest on the PC side is EmEditor, and it is nowhere close to BBEdit. There are literally thousands of text editors out there over there, but none of them even come close.

Then there is the price argument. Apple's pricing on its computers is really competetive with the rest of the industry. However, people like to compare HP's and Dell's low end with Apple's low end, and say something really cute like "Why can't Apple's computers be $xxx since [HP|Dell|Sony|etc] is at that price point." It is a bad game to play, and also one that is slanted against Apple because they also have to pay for R&D costs, they also make sure none of their machines are truly crippled; which isn't the case on the PC side.

Understood.

Don't get me wrong, I love my Macs, Apple HW, OS X, and OS X software! Best of class, IMHO.

But you CAN make the cost argument, you CAN make the number of applications argument, and you CAN make the 3rd party HW argument, and to most people these are more compelling then the seemless ease of use argument, or the life cycle cost argument.

Most people see computers as black boxes, they don't care what's inside, how it looks on the outside, as long as it get's the job done.

Most people see work flow as a black box, they don't care about the OS, or the application, as long as it get's the job done in about the same amount of time

However, most people make choices based on the initial cost (however wrong that may be) and choice arguments.

[franksargent]

I must admit that Intel has opened up a can of Whoop Ass in the CPU arena.

IMHO, it will take a serious combined effort from the likes of AMD/ATI and IBM to remain competitive.

[doh123]

Originally Posted by jamezog

So what was that I heard in another recent thread that Intel was going to max out at 4 cores???

Yeah, I wanna see that 80-core monster plugged in, too. One teraflop on a die smaller than an old LP (if godrifle has the right pic above). Have we ever come a long way!

I wonder which architecture it's on. If it's 45nm, I'd love to see it shrunk to 32nm - wouldn't be a whole lot bigger than a CD. I'll bet we'll seriously be seeing 16 (or more) cores on PC's by the end of the decade. Makes me want to wait another couple years before upgrading my Mac, unless Leopard ships with some new surprises.

I dont think anyone ever said intel will max at 4 cores... unless they go out of business soon. They will max at 4 cores on 65nm.... it will be awhile before there is more.

the 80 core chip is a proof of concept chip, not a usable chip. They are not 80 CPU Cores, they are 80 FPU cores. Its not an x86 compatible chip at all, nor really usable beyond a proof of concept yet.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by jamezog

So what was that I heard in another recent thread that Intel was going to max out at 4 cores???

I think it t happened inThat was Joe_The_Dragon spouting off while getting key facts wrong on why it won't scale well.

Yeah, I wanna see that 80-core monster plugged in, too. One teraflop on a die smaller than an old LP (if godrifle has the right pic above). Have we ever come a long way!

I wonder which architecture it's on. If it's 45nm, I'd love to see it shrunk to 32nm - wouldn't be a whole lot bigger than a CD.

No, that wafer isn't one CPU. That wafer has about 80x 80 core chips.

[Programmer]

Originally Posted by doh123

I dont think anyone ever said intel will max at 4 cores... unless they go out of business soon. They will max at 4 cores on 65nm.... it will be awhile before there is more.

I wouldn't count on that.