# Intel Makes 22nm 3-D Tri-Gate Tech for Ivy Bridge



## vickybat (May 5, 2011)

Intel Corporation today announced transistors using a three-dimensional structure will be put into high-volume manufacturing. Intel introduced a revolutionary 3-D transistor design called Tri-Gate, first disclosed by Intel in 2002, into high-volume manufacturing at the 22-nanometer node in Ivy Bridge. 

*Source*


----------



## Gaurav Bhattacharjee (May 5, 2011)

Yep. Intel will mass produce 3D transistors, allowing processors down to 10nm by 2015.
2D transistors were only going to allow a shrink down to 16nm. 



> Intel says we'll see the new technology first in its 22nm Ivy Bridge CPUs, going into mass production in the second half of the year, and it's planning 14nm chips in 2013 and 10nm chips in 2015.



*Source*


----------



## abhidev (May 5, 2011)

Thats awesome!!!!!!!!!! Also heard about the news that intel will be entering the mobile and tablet market soon and also has decided to partner with both google and microsoft......thats a win-win situation for Intel!!!!


----------



## bhushan2k (May 5, 2011)

^^yup...that's good..cortex, ARM and other will be worried now...


----------



## saswat23 (May 5, 2011)

First 65nm
then 45nm
then 32nm
then 22nm
then 15nm
then 10nm
..
..
..
..
Very soon i hope there will 0nm chips. I mean zero-nm chips.....


----------



## abhidev (May 5, 2011)

the unit then might go to 0.50nm or so....


----------



## saswat23 (May 5, 2011)

means that wont be visible. So how are we gonna place the proccy in the socket..???


----------



## coderunknown (May 5, 2011)

bhushan05d251 said:


> ^^yup...that's good..cortex, ARM and other will be worried now...



i don't think so. with Intel's high price & also cause it doesn't have as much experience as Qualcomm, Samsung & Texas Instruments. it'll be a hard fight. 

also cortex is nothing but ARM name for one of the cores it developed. ARM just designs the processor. further enhancement & manufacturing is done by others.



saswat23 said:


> First 65nm
> then 45nm
> then 32nm
> then 22nm
> ...



after 22 it should be 16 & 11nm. well, it'll be interesting as how far can these shrinks in manufacturing process can go.



saswat23 said:


> means that wont be visible. So how are we gonna place the proccy in the socket..???



 each processor comes with only 1 transistor?


----------



## vickybat (May 5, 2011)

Sam said:


> i don't think so. with Intel's high price & also cause it doesn't have as much experience as Qualcomm, Samsung & Texas Instruments. it'll be a hard fight.



Buddy don't underestimate intel. You have no idea about the potential of this company. Its R&D centre is like area51 i.e totally confidential and who knows what these guys constantly plan there.

They even have research centre in siberia (total icelands). If intel makes a move , it will be strong. Who knows, their quadcore soc offerings might be efficient and architecturally superior to their arm counterparts.


----------



## saswat23 (May 5, 2011)

sam,
what i meant is


abhidev said:


> the unit then might go to 0.50nm or so....



So, if the proccy is 0.5nm


saswat23 said:


> means that wont be visible. So how are we gonna place the proccy in the socket..???




What i actually meant was that if the proccys will be 0.5nm then how would we put them in the socket. They would be invisible to naked eyes.

So, very soon we would be using microscopes to put these proccys in their sockets.


----------



## coderunknown (May 6, 2011)

vickybat said:


> Buddy don't underestimate intel.



i know Intel's potential but if they price a normal SOC 2-3 times higher than its competitors (as they are doing now), clients will surely look for the other source. yes, tablets with Windows7/8 will run mainly on Intel processors as even if ARM is supported, writing new software just for tablets, its madness.



vickybat said:


> You have no idea about the potential of this company. Its R&D centre is like area51 i.e totally confidential and who knows what these guys constantly plan there.



well thats kind of true. they don't leak info like AMD Nvidia do with their slides.



vickybat said:


> They even have research centre in siberia (total icelands). If intel makes a move , it will be strong. Who knows, their quadcore soc offerings might be efficient and architecturally superior to their arm counterparts.



but do remember its not a 1 vs 1 fight. its like jumping into a pool full of sharks. Intel maybe no.1 player in desktop/laptop/server but others are the master of tiny processing. anyway, future computing is going to be damn interesting 



saswat23 said:


> sam,
> what i meant is
> 
> So, if the proccy is 0.5nm
> ...



see, currently the processor we use. their actual core is really small. around 1/5th the total size of the processor. but they are manufactured using 32nm (not visible to naked eye). but as they pack close to or over 1B transistors, they acquire a size of 75-80sq mm. so they packed inside the processor & visible. and so we can handle them easily.

so think 2015. 11nm. 50-60B transistors. so basically size should be same as the die of now & i feel, we'll have the same processors until they are integrated into the PCB permanently, making it more like a SOC.

hope i answered it properly.


----------



## bhushan2k (May 6, 2011)

vickybat said:


> Buddy don't underestimate intel. You have no idea about the potential of this company. Its R&D centre is like area51 i.e totally confidential and who knows what these guys constantly plan there.
> 
> They even have research centre in siberia (total icelands). If intel makes a move , it will be strong. Who knows, their quadcore soc offerings might be efficient and architecturally superior to their arm counterparts.



Exactly. Completely agree..

@sam,

If all are casual sharks then intel will be the blue whale.. but to be honest, intel is true giant..and they also have experience of mobile proccy i think..xscale for blackberry i guess..so if they take a serious note for mobile computing then no matter how many rivals are there, intel will let them on one side..


----------



## Joker (May 6, 2011)

@saswat: currently u dont know how these chps are made. google/youtube to find out more.

intel's low power atom are as behind as amd brazos as much as amd phenom II is behind intel sandy bridge. x86 will never be able to compete with ARM as far as low power designs are concerned.

x86 has a long long long way to go before it competes with ARM processors. ARM has been designed from groundup for low power computing. x86 is powerful but not power efficient.

will intel license ARM designs?? NEVER. too stubborn for that. it is like accepting defeat.

currently there were rumours about AMD taking over ARM (which they refused but who knows). i cant see them taking over ARM, but i can definitely see them licensing ARM proc designs and pairing them with their gfx cores. ARM is going to conduct a keynote at amd fusion consortium.

no i dont want amd to take over ARM. that will be monoply as they will have everything at their disposal. ARM is a cheap company to buy btw. and i hate monoply like intel. for 8 years 1998-2006 amd had superior processors which didnt sell because of intel's monoply measures with OEMs.


----------



## vickybat (May 6, 2011)

Joker said:


> intel's low power atom are as behind as amd brazos as much as amd phenom II is behind intel sandy bridge. x86 will never be able to compete with ARM as far as low power designs are concerned.
> 
> x86 has a long long long way to go before it competes with ARM processors. ARM has been designed from groundup for low power computing. x86 is powerful but not power efficient.
> 
> ...



Don't go by history. X86 was never competitive in mobile computing does not mean that it won't pose a threat in the upcoming times. Intel doesn't have to license ARM designs. They have the potential to come up with something designed from groundup.

You must have realised by reading the article in the first post. That is something revolutionary. Besides we will be witnessing a 2nd generation atom successor. Who knows how power efficient and power house that will turn out to be?


----------



## rajan1311 (May 6, 2011)

my uncle does r&d work at intel...he working on an 80 core cpu due to launch n 2012...

who underestimated them? they have the $$, fabs and the talent

btw, AMD used to own a company called "qualcomm"  (rather, its now known as qualcomm) , but they sold it ....so i dont think they gonna acquire any soon..


----------



## Joker (May 6, 2011)

vickybat said:


> Don't go by history. X86 was never competitive in mobile computing does not mean that it won't pose a threat in the upcoming times. Intel doesn't have to license ARM designs. They have the potential to come up with something designed from groundup.
> 
> You must have realised by reading the article in the first post. That is something revolutionary. Besides we will be witnessing a 2nd generation atom successor. Who knows how power efficient and power house that will turn out to be?


x86 (atom and brazos) will never be as power efficient as ARM. why?

if u want to compete with ARM...design something power efficient from scratch rather than optimizing x86 as an aftermath. ARM is designed for performance & power efficiency from the beginning itself. unlike x86. x86 is designed for performance.

just like windows will never be as secure as linux. windows treats security as an aftermath unlike linux which is designed for security from the bottom.


----------



## ico (May 6, 2011)

rajan1311 said:


> btw, AMD used to own a company called "qualcomm"  (rather, its now known as qualcomm) , but they sold it ....so i dont think they gonna acquire any soon..


hmm not true. Qualcomm has always been a separate company. AMD had sold off their SoC/mobile division to Qualcomm in 2009 as it desperately needed funds.


----------



## rajan1311 (May 6, 2011)

^my bad...had read the thing some time back....anyways, i am sure they wish they had not done that, with the smartphone bizz booming, they could have cashed in...


----------



## abhidev (May 6, 2011)

Also to give an headsup....IMacs soon will be available with Z68 chipsets enabling better performance due to ssd caching and with amd gpu......howzzatt!!!!!!


----------



## coderunknown (May 6, 2011)

bhushan05d251 said:


> @sam,
> 
> If all are casual sharks then intel will be the blue whale.. but to be honest, intel is true giant..and they also have experience of mobile proccy i think..xscale for blackberry i guess..so if they take a serious note for mobile computing then no matter how many rivals are there, intel will let them on one side..



its a long time to go before Intel can put real pressure on other. yes, Intel got the talent, the fabs & the $$$ but you can't win the world just cause you got it all. in OEM, price plays a big role & if they don't price their mobile SOC accordingly, they'll hurt themselves.

about X-scale, this is my story:

*i56.tinypic.com/11kjtl2.jpg
chip is fast & can even be overclocked.



Joker said:


> intel's low power atom are as behind as amd brazos as much as amd phenom II is behind intel sandy bridge. x86 will never be able to compete with ARM as far as low power designs are concerned.



but Intel makes really power efficient chips when the size is big (Atom>Brazos & Core i3/i5/i7 >>> Phenom2/Athlon2). will be interesting to see how can they compete when the size of chip is really really small.



Joker said:


> x86 has a long long long way to go before it competes with ARM processors. ARM has been designed from groundup for low power computing. x86 is powerful but not power efficient.



true & its not like only Intel is the transistor boss. who knows what others are using & planning to welcome Intel. but taking Intel lightly, can be the last bad thing others can do.



Joker said:


> will intel license ARM designs?? NEVER. too stubborn for that. it is like accepting defeat.



they done it in the past with the Xscale thing. thing wasn't a success & so sold it to Marvell.



Joker said:


> currently there were rumours about AMD taking over ARM (which they refused but who knows). i cant see them taking over ARM



1st they need the money. for now fight Intel & gain back the market share then they can think of jumping into the mobile battlefield.



Joker said:


> ARM is going to conduct a keynote at amd fusion consortium.



AMD can't license their X86 license to ARM as the license is given to AMD by Intel. but the opposite is highly likely, AMD getting hold of a Cortex A15 license.



Joker said:


> no i dont want amd to take over ARM. that will be monoply as they will have everything at their disposal. ARM is a cheap company to buy btw.



if they try a move like that, one of the semiconductor giants may try to get hold of AMD itself. & if this was possible, why Qualcomm/Intel/Samsung already not tried it? infact Intel decided to make their own architecture wasting billions of $. doesn't makes sense.


----------



## vickybat (May 6, 2011)

Joker said:


> x86 (atom and brazos) will never be as power efficient as ARM. why?
> 
> if u want to compete with ARM...design something power efficient from scratch rather than optimizing x86 as an aftermath. ARM is designed for performance & power efficiency from the beginning itself. unlike x86. x86 is designed for performance.
> 
> just like windows will never be as secure as linux. windows treats security as an aftermath unlike linux which is designed for security from the bottom.



Wrong again mate. Performance and efficiency should be a combination and work in tandem rather than a one man show. You say that x86 was designed for performance. But looking at current trends on how power efficient processors are turning out to be without sacrificing performance(in fact giving more performance/watt) it won't be surprisisng at all to see x86 taking over arm if players like intel and amd concentrate seriously on it.

Superior fabrication techniques will only bring down power requirements and pave way for Soc's competing with the ARM counterparts. Intel has officially announced of going the soc way and concentrate more on mobile computing.
Now that is not an understatement and they clearly mean business. Lets see for how long ARM hold on.

About windows and linux, we can't start a debate on that here. But linux has fewer security threats relatively because of lack of users compared to windows and the amount of applications used. So the former is an easy target. If hackers concentrate on programming malwares and viruses on the linux platform, then it will be equally vulnerable.


----------



## Joker (May 6, 2011)

Sam said:


> but Intel makes really power efficient chips when the size is big (*Atom>Brazos* & Core i3/i5/i7 >>> Phenom2/Athlon2). will be interesting to see how can they compete when the size of chip is really really small.


correction: Brazos >>> atom.

guess what? atom N series for netbooks is a die of 88 sq mm. brazos is a die of 74 sq mm which also contains the GPU. over 75% of the die is GPU. we can see which CPU is moar die efficient.



Sam said:


> AMD can't license their X86 license to ARM as the license is given to AMD by Intel. but the opposite is highly likely, AMD getting hold of a Cortex A15 license.


i was only talking about the opposite. amd acquiring an ARM license.

regarding x86 - it is a mutual contract between intel and amd.

amd is using intel's x86
whereas intel is using amd's amd64 in all their processors since core 2 duo. neutrally known as x86_64.

if one breaks contract...the other company can easily respond too.



vickybat said:


> Wrong again mate. Performance and efficiency should be a combination and work in tandem rather than a one man show. You say that x86 was designed for performance. But looking at current trends on how power efficient processors are turning out to be without sacrificing performance(in fact giving more performance/watt) it won't be surprisisng at all to see x86 taking over arm if players like intel and amd concentrate seriously on it.
> 
> Superior fabrication techniques will only bring down power requirements and pave way for Soc's competing with the ARM counterparts. Intel has officially announced of going the soc way and concentrate more on mobile computing.
> Now that is not an understatement and they clearly mean business. Lets see for how long ARM hold on.


intel has been concentrated on this since ages and guess what...they have failed till now. amd on the other hand exceeded them in their first attempt which still isnt good enough for mobiles.

amd's ceo got sacked why? lack of mobile market products and iedology. it is obvious x86 isnt going anywhere in the mobile segment.




vickybat said:


> About windows and linux, we can't start a debate on that here. But linux has fewer security threats relatively because of lack of users compared to windows and the amount of applications used. So the former is an easy target. If hackers concentrate on programming malwares and viruses on the linux platform, then it will be equally vulnerable.


plain old silly argument. no, i wont reply to this. why? explaining things to someone who hasnt used linux is absolutely useless.

but i will say a simple thing. taking off 1000 linux servers (ur ISP, country gateways etc.) can cause much much more damage than taking off only 1000 windows client machines. think about it. linux is 80%+ dominant in server market share fyki.


----------



## vickybat (May 6, 2011)

Joker said:


> correction: Brazos >>> atom.
> 
> guess what? atom N series for netbooks is a die of 88 sq mm. brazos is a die of 74 sq mm which also contains the GPU. over 75% of the die is GPU. we can see which CPU is moar die efficient.



Yes that may be the case currently but comparing a previous generation die with the current generation doesn't speak anything. Wait for the atom sucessor before passing a verdict.






Joker said:


> regarding x86 - it is a mutual contract between intel and amd.
> 
> amd is using intel's x86
> whereas intel is using amd's amd64 in all their processors since core 2 duo. neutrally known as x86_64.
> ...



X64 was developed by amd and was an extension to the x86 instruction set and used 64 bit registers. Intel then developed IA64 which was radically diferent from amd 64. Eventually x86-64 was made neutral to be used by both vendors.




Joker said:


> intel has been concentrated on this since ages and guess what...they have failed till now. amd on the other hand exceeded them in their first attempt which still isnt good enough for mobiles.
> 
> amd's ceo got sacked why? lack of mobile market products and iedology. it is obvious x86 isnt going anywhere in the mobile segment.



Everybody has better guesses here. Failed till now doesn't mean that you keep failing for the rest of your life. Think maturely and not like a kid. Your last point literally made me laugh. 

You clearly have no idea on x86 computing.




Joker said:


> plain old silly argument. no, i wont reply to this. why? explaining things to someone who hasnt used linux is absolutely useless.
> 
> but i will say a simple thing. taking off 1000 linux servers (ur ISP, country gateways etc.) can cause much much more damage than taking off only 1000 windows client machines. think about it. linux is 80%+ dominant in server market share fyki.



You were silly enough to reply this. I said before you cannot debate here on it. You are too adamant and stubborn to even reply. You seem like you are a pro linux user here. How many distro's you've used?

Yes its true that linux has the same kernel as the unix platform and is a lot stable. There is no denying that and yes its a clear choice in server platform.
But it has nothing to do with the discussion here. Stay on topic.


----------



## Joker (May 6, 2011)

vickybat said:


> X64 was developed by amd and was an extension to the x86 instruction set and used 64 bit registers. *Intel then developed IA64 which was radically diferent from amd 64. Eventually x86-64 was made neutral to be used by both vendors.*


the bolded part is not factually correct.
intel first developed IA64 which was not backwards compatible with x86. amd then came up with amd64/x86_64 which was backwards compatible with x86.
"x86-64 was made neutral to be used by both vendors" - x86_64 is just a "neutral name"
intel's implementation is called em64t or intel 64 which has a couple of things new from amd's implementation. amd licensed amd64/x86_64 to intel.




vickybat said:


> Yes *its true that linux has the same kernel as the unix platform and is a lot stable.*





vickybat said:


> But it has nothing to do with the discussion here. Stay on topic.


it was only an analogy to tell u the difference between developing something from scratch to do a particular task rather than redesigning it as an aftermath.


----------



## vickybat (May 6, 2011)

Joker said:


> the bolded part is not factually correct.
> intel first developed IA64 which was not backwards compatible with x86. amd then came up with amd64/x86_64 which was backwards compatible with x86.
> "x86-64 was made neutral to be used by both vendors" - x86_64 is just a "neutral name"
> intel's implementation is called em64t or intel 64 which has a couple of things new from amd's implementation.




IA64 was used by intel itanium processors. EM64T was an extension for their existing line up including the netburst based p4's and the subsequent dual cores. It was well before the conroe based microprocessors. 






Joker said:


> it was only an analogy to tell u the difference between developing something from scratch to do a particular task rather than redesigning it as an aftermath.



Well your analogy doesn't speak anything in the world of microprocessors. Everything should not be redesigned from scratch if it ain't broke at all. There was never an aftermath in the first place.X86 codepath is diverse and can be used efficiently in mobile computing with the right underlying chip architecture and perhaps intel is doing it right now as we debate.


----------



## coderunknown (May 6, 2011)

Joker said:


> guess what? atom N series for netbooks is a die of 88 sq mm. brazos is a die of 74 sq mm which also contains the GPU. over 75% of the die is GPU. we can see which CPU is moar die efficient.



will be interesting to see how they perform on the bigger ones. till now no proper result.



Joker said:


> intel has been concentrated on this since ages and guess what...they have failed till now.



smaller fabrication process will only bring them close to ARM counterparts.



Joker said:


> it is obvious x86 isnt going anywhere in the mobile segment.



only for now. 22nm or 16nm will bring them to mobile for sure. but how the mobile community accepts it (or rejects it) will be interesting to see.


----------



## Joker (May 6, 2011)

vickybat said:


> IA64 was used by intel itanium processors. EM64T was an extension for their existing line up including the netburst based p4's and the subsequent dual cores. It was well before the conroe based microprocessors.


i perhaps knw this better than u. why are u saying obvious things? 

amd64 = x86_64 = em64t = ia32e = intel 64. most companies call it amd64/x86_64/x64 though.

ia32e/em64t/intel 64 was made only possible after licensing from amd.




vickybat said:


> Well your analogy doesn't speak anything in the world of microprocessors. Everything should not be redesigned from scratch if it ain't broke at all. There was never an aftermath in the first place.X86 codepath is diverse and can be used efficiently in mobile computing with the right underlying chip architecture and perhaps intel is doing it right now as we debate.


my anology is perfect. u can see why the whole world was using...is using and will be using ARM in mobiles.
despite gettings into an agreement with intel with cross-licensing of technologies...guess what did nvidia choose for its next-gen power efficient processor? ARM. not x86.

all what i have said is. as of now & at least till 4 years...x86 cant compete in the mobile segment as much as ARM. converse is true for client desktops.


----------



## rajan1311 (May 6, 2011)

I dont see what the argument is? ARM Vs x86? Why this thread? please can someone split this topic?


----------



## vickybat (May 6, 2011)

Joker said:


> i perhaps knw this better than u. why are u saying obvious things?
> 
> amd64 = x86_64 = em64t = ia32e = intel 64. most companies call it amd64/x86_64/x64 though.
> 
> ia32e/em64t/intel 64 was made only possible after licensing from amd.



You started those obvious things. Why complain now? Knowing better and able to comprehend properly are two different things. 





Joker said:


> my anology is perfect. u can see why the whole world was using...is using and will be using ARM in mobiles.
> despite gettings into an agreement with intel with cross-licensing of technologies...guess what did nvidia choose for its next-gen power efficient processor? ARM. not x86.
> 
> all what i have said is. as of now & at least till 4 years...x86 cant compete in the mobile segment as much as ARM. converse is true for client desktops.



Your analogy is rubbish. Its not always wise to develop from scratch. There are a lot other factors associated. Read the following quote from wikipedia:



> AMD64 was created as an alternative to Intel and Hewlett Packard's radically different IA-64 architecture. Originally announced in 1999[6] with a full specification in August 2000,[7] the architecture was positioned by AMD from the beginning as an evolutionary way to add 64-bit computing capabilities to the existing x86 architecture, as opposed to Intel's approach of creating an entirely new 64-bit architecture with IA-64



Now tell me what happened to IA-64? It was a failure  because intel itanium processors were big flops. They had to revert back to the standards set by x86-64 rather than going with something radically different. In the same way, since ARM is doing good now, does not necessary means its competitor has to develop something entirely different and plan to set new standards.

Unless they are in dire need of a redesign, its absolutely unecessary. Stop arguing foolishly and giving false analogies.


----------



## ico (May 6, 2011)

Interesting read: RISC vs. CISC in the mobile era

That article is two years old and not much has changed since then. x86 might finally make into tablets, but mobiles...not any time soon. Low-power is a different game altogether. Lower fabrication will help, but there are bigger things to look into.


rajan1311 said:


> I dont see what the argument is? ARM Vs x86? Why this thread? please can someone split this topic?


Doesn't really matter much. Beauty of the forum if you ask me. If it grows out of hand, I'll split it when I get a PC.


----------



## bhushan2k (May 6, 2011)

rajan1311 said:


> I dont see what the argument is? ARM Vs x86? Why this thread? please can someone split this topic?



Just get some knowledge from these experts buddy..m enjoying reading this thread..



ico said:


> Interesting read: RISC vs. CISC in the mobile era
> 
> That article is two years old and not much has changed since then. x86 might finally make into tablets, but mobiles...not any time soon. Low-power is a different game altogether. Lower fabrication will help, but there are bigger things to look into.



Yup..now m agree with u..it's like a man having huge weight has to do a lot of work to lose his weight similarly with a skinny person has to eat a lot with lots of dedication to gain weight... but one thing is definately true as i said previously, intel HASN'T CONCENTRATED SO MUCH on mobile computing..so arm rocks..


----------



## bhushan2k (May 8, 2011)

*ARM Doesn't See Intel's Tri-Gate Technology as a Threat*

Source


----------

