Intel: We're on track for 32 nanometer manufacturing

Intel: We're on track for 32 nanometer manufacturing

Summary: Intel said Wednesday that it has completed the development phase of its next manufacturing process that will shrink chip circuits to 32 nanometers.The milestone means that Intel will be able to push faster, more efficient chips starting in the fourth quarter.

SHARE:

Intel said Wednesday that it has completed the development phase of its next manufacturing process that will shrink chip circuits to 32 nanometers.

The milestone means that Intel will be able to push faster, more efficient chips starting in the fourth quarter.

In a statement, Intel said it will provide more technical details at the International Electron Devices Meeting next week in San Francisco. Bottom line: Shrinking to a 32 nanometer is one more step in its "tick tock" strategy, which aims to create a new architecture with new manufacturing process every 12 months.

While that strategy is unmatched, it's unclear whether customers will see Intel's tick tock plan as a huge selling point in a downturn. For instance, AMD executives have quietly begun highlighting the risks involved with shifting architectures so quickly. During its Shanghai server chip launch one of AMD's big selling points was that customers only needed an easy BIOS update to upgrade. There's a good reason for that though: It's nearly impossible to keep pace with Intel. AMD is also trying to shift the playing field to virtualization and power consumption.

Intel is obviously betting that its rapid-fire advancements will produce performance gains so jaw dropping that customers can't resist.

As far as the nuts and bolts go, here's how Intel described its upcoming paper:

The Intel 32nm paper and presentation describe a logic technology that incorporates second-generation high-k + metal gate technology, 193nm immersion lithography for critical patterning layers and enhanced transistor strain techniques. These features enhance the performance and energy efficiency of Intel processors. Intel’s manufacturing process has the highest transistor performance and the highest transistor density of any reported 32nm technology in the industry.

Topics: Intel, CXO, Hardware, Processors, IT Employment

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

15 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • When does AMD file a monopoly suit

    agaisnt Intel for out performing them in R&D?
    No_Ax_to_Grind
    • Welcome to every antitrust case ever

      Companies can't compete, so they try to crush their enemies in the courtroom...where it is nearly impossible for the defendant to win. And even if they do, they incur massive costs that reduce their competitiveness. Look at history- Standard Oil, ALCOA, Microsoft. All BS cases brought by weak politically connected competitors. All companies were known for agressively cutting prices and increasing quality, which last time I checked was a boon to consumers. The evil trusts that some people would have us believe in simply don't exist.
      larlalonde
      • Don't be silly.

        MS had a monopoly. If it weren't for anti-trust we'd all be eating MS milk, eggs, and butter because the grocery store would have to buy only MS branded products to have the right to use PCs.

        A companies reach should be limited. What Intel has is not the same, since they aren't using their CPU market share to manipulate non-CPU related business decisions in other companies. For one, you can buy an Intel CPU and still use the MS or GCC compiler when you write C/C++ code for it.
        T1Oracle
        • Yes MS has a monopoly, not illegal.

          What part of that got past you?

          But MS has nothing to do with the fact AMD has tried to bring monopoly charges against Intel in multiple countries because they simply can not compete.
          No_Ax_to_Grind
          • And...

            The amd fanboys are almost as bad as the anti-ms nutballs that infest every forum and blog.
            jamesrayg
          • You're correct

            Lets also remember this; there is absolutely NOTHING
            stopping anyone from removing Windows and installing
            what ever operating system they like on their computer. If
            Microsoft forced OEM's to include a widget in their
            computers that stopped alternative operating systems from
            being loaded - the original poster might have a point; the
            simple fact of the matter, that has not happened.

            One has to face reality - Windows is dominant because it is
            GET (Good Enough Technology). Its not the best but it
            certainly isn't the worst; it does the job with an acceptable
            price tag and ease of use. It is the VHS of the computer
            world. One can argue to the superiority of BETAMAX (Mac
            OS X, Linux, BSD) but the reality is that people have chosen
            to go with VHS.

            As for Intel - Intel is where it is because it produces a
            superior product. The moment Intel they did the stupid
            thing of the P4 with the pipeline that reached to the moon
            and back - they lost marketshare to AMD. Intel regrouped,
            realised they did something stupid and came out with a
            superior product to replace it - and how they're back
            ontop again.
            Kaiwai
  • RIP AMD... :( nt

    nt
    T1Oracle
  • RE: Intel: We're on track for 32 nanometer manufacturing

    First problem I see, the price! How much to upgrade a system that is already functioning at an acceptable level and then switching to an even faster process.
    How will the infrastructure handle the speeds? One can only have so much speed and then the infrastructure obviates the speed at which information can be transmitted and received.
    All this leads to one question, How will the existing infrastructure interact with such high speed processing?
    I for one will have to wait for the internet infrastructure to upgrade itself so that the obvious benefits of higher processing speed can be readily available to all consumers and developers.
    journeyer58
    • huh???

      "How much to upgrade a system that is already functioning at an acceptable level..."

      Why would you even think of doing anything in that case?
      No_Ax_to_Grind
      • what he means is

        intel is tryng to get people to upgrade every 12 months at a pretty high cost cause each new chip requires a new motherboard and so on meanwhile as the chhip speed increases the speed at which information travels around the systems of the computer isnt really increasing. there is a point at which the speed of the computer as a whole limits the speed at which the process wilo be allowed to process data. also there is a data tramission limit in how fast one can get information from the net which then limits the computer when using the internet
        yowshi
  • RE: Intel: We're on track for 32 nanometer manufacturing

    i don't get it. does some of you guys wont intel to sit back and just wait tell amd catches up? should intel wait and not make super computers able to find the cure for my diabetes just because amd or ibm can't do it yet. the race is on and if you can't keep up get out of the way.
    burtonfrost
    • AMEN!

      The AMD fan boys are crying in their beer is all.
      No_Ax_to_Grind
  • AMD isn't doing well on power either, if you look at the official numbers

    http://formortals.com/Home/tabid/36/EntryID/130/Defaul
    t.aspx
    georgeou
  • RE: Intel: We're on track for 32 nanometer manufacturing

    Because it is risky for AMD doesn't mean it is risky for Intel.
    goingbust
  • For the first time in a long time..

    I agree with AMD.

    The current product cycle for new high end machines is 2 years. In 2 years, a high end machine is only moderate, and in need of replacement. With intel's scheme, it seems more and more likely it will become a one year replacement cycle, and product valuation has shown that cost won't keep pace.

    As it stands, the price of hardware has been dropping, but not the rate of intel's progress. Most people hadn't even gotten over core 2 extreme shock when core i7 was announced and shipped. I think you can imagine how this makes distributors of high end hardware look when they promise a machine that will be good for a reasonable duration, only to have it take a backseat less than 6 months later.

    It's also creating a noticable disparity between manufacturer's like alienware and falcon northwest. It really does become an issue of 'is this product really worth this much?' I have to say, considering the 2.93ghz core i7 processor is faster than the 3.2ghz core 2 extreme in practical application, I'd feel really silly having bought an extreme 2 months ago, at double the price of the mid range core i7.
    Spiritusindomit