Intel: We know how to make 10nm chips
Summary: Intel researchers believe they have a workable manufacturing method for 10nm processors, paving the way for future chips that consume less power and have greater performance than their forebears.
Intel researchers think they have cracked the 10nm manufacturing problem, paving the way for advanced chips that consume very little power.
The chip company's Ivy Bridge and Haswell chips are due to be built on its 22nm tri-gate process. After that, the company will move to 14nm and is expecting to start making chips with that process in late 2013 or early 2014. On Wednesday at the Intel Developer Forum, the company revealed that it thinks it knows how to build to 10nm as well.
The process a chip is made to dictates the density with which transistors can be packed together and the efficiency with which they use power, so new manufacturing methods at finer detail levels allow for better chips.
"The 14nm technology is in full development mode now and on track for full production readiness at the end of next year," Mark Bohr, director of process architecture and integration for Intel's technology manufacturing group, said. "Right now I'm spending my time personally on 10nm pathfinding and it looks like we have a solution there."
The 10nm solution may rely on a number of experimental technologies (pictured) potentially based around photonics, graphene, materials synthesis, dense memory, nanowires, extreme ultra violet lithography (EUV) and updated tri-gate transistors, Bohr said.
When it comes to how the 10nm chips will be manufactured, Intel has an immersion lithography method that works, though it would prefer to use EUV.
"I'd like to have EUV for 10, but I can't bet that it would be ready in time," Bohr said, hinting at the difficulties in using this method. EUV has much higher costs than immersion lithography.
Intel's research group are also exploring technologies for 7nm and 5nm solutions, though these are a very long way off as 10nm is not expected to go into production qualification until 2015.
Bohr capped off his talk by noting that Intel, unlike chip rivals AMD and ARM, owns and operates its manufacturing facilities.
"Yes, [process development] requires huge investments, but it also provides huge economic advantages," he said.
ARM licenses its chips and they are predominantly made in foundries operated by Samsung, the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, and GlobalFoundries. AMD uses GlobalFoundries. Intel has a three-year lead over these companies in terms of process, and with the news on Wednesday it looks like it could maintain that far into the future.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Only Intel NEEDS To Make 10nm Chips
Intel is too wedded to its bloated, complex, resource-hungry x86 architecture. The only market where customers care about compatibility with that is the old, stagnant desktop. In the new, growing mobile market, nobody buys devices based on their ability to run Windows (as Microsoft is discovering). Intel should dust off that ARM licence it is still reputed to hold, and get cracking using its legendary fab capabilities to produce something that people really want to buy.
You missed one big point
Re: Where are those ARM supercomputers?
So power bills are expensive, even for people who can afford supercomputers.
RISC ones as well
helo
different approach
Not the same subject with your ARM "supercomputer".
"Supercomputers" tend to be massively parralel machines,
Re: But, the Intel chips are getting smaller ...
Intel is too wedded to its bloated, complex, resource-hungry x86 architecture. The only market where customers care about compatibility with that is the old, stagnant desktop. In the new, growing mobile market, nobody buys devices based on their ability to run Windows (as Microsoft is discovering). Intel should dust off that ARM licence it is still reputed to hold, and get cracking using its legendary fab capabilities to produce something that people really want to buy.
Yet, with one x86 processor, you can get many times the performance of an
Face it, the ARM is limited and for such work, it doesn't need to be bigger and can be many times less expensive. It's like getting having to get 10 Honda Civics to transport the same number of people that a single bus could handle in one shot. But, the bus will still have plenty of power left over, and the Civics will be running at max.
Compare all you want, but the fact remains that, ARMs can't begin to compare, and are intended for limited purposes. The Intels can handle any computing job tossed at them.
x86 is technically more efficient and has benefits too
This level of fragmentation is caused by the lack of universal generic drivers for ARM. Therefore, it's up to the OEM's to create their own 3rd party drivers which are sometimes poorly made or incompatible with other devices. x86 does not have this weakness and is universally supported. That's why you can install Windows on any x86 machine without the need to hunt down CPU/chipset specific drivers. It's also why it's possible to install OS X on any standard PC hardware. That universal support is very important and why x86 remains better than ARM.
Also, since x86 is a CISC processor, it is more efficient in more advanced calculations. And even simple calculations are more efficient with CISC. For example, if you were to solve the problem 2^3 with CISC and RISC, it would go like this:
CISC: 2^3 = 8
RISC: 2^3 = 2*2*2
2*2 = 4
4*2 = 8
Which looks more efficient to you? Also, keep in mind that Intel has finally managed to match the low power usage of ARM while maintaining performance. So far, the single core Intel Atom SoC (Medfield), is almost on par with the latest quad-core Tegra 3. The next chip from Intel will be a dual-core Intel Atom which will double the performance of the original SoC thus making Intel Atom's dual-core iteration almost twice as powerful as a Tegra 3. Imagine what'll happen once Intel gets their SoC's up to quad-core's WITH Hyper-Threading?
I don't think you realize how weak ARM chips are. In terms of pure processing power, a Tegra 3, probably one of the most powerful ARM CPU's today, is only about as powerful as a high-end Pentium 3 to a mid-range Pentium 4. And don't forget graphics performance of ARM. ARM chips are only capable of running games that look like they're from the late 90's or early 2000's. x86, including Intel HD Graphics, is capable of running games like Crysis, Halo, Call of Duty, and Gears of War. And don't even pull the whole "mobile devices/tablets are designed for light computing" on me. Intel-based Windows tablets are fully capable of running modern games including Crysis. With the introduction of these new lower-power chips matching ARM, there's no comparison.
The whole CISC vs. RISC argument is pointless because at this point, both architectures use the same amount of power. Therefore, the arguments should be about performance. And right now, as it's always been, CISC in the form of x86 is A LOT more powerful than ARM.
Depending on the application
And people don't even know what they buy. It's told to them via polished marketing campaigns. Why think when they do it for you? Just be sure to wear the T-shirt with their logo emblazoned on it for free advertising too...
performance to power
x86 Architecture
Intel is much like Microsoft, its a necessary evil in the marketplace. Without Intel producing x86, who else does ? AMD ? Not bloody likely. If everyone swapped to ARM overnight sure. Since thats physically impossible due to severe dependencies on the x86 instruction sets, Intel isnt going anywhere but UP anytime soon.
It's Intel servers behind the ARM designer
What are those servers with super computing horse power enabling ARM, Qualcom, Samsung, TI, designing their ARM chips? Answer: go figure out. x86, no?
Without x86 computing power, can you have ARM design churn out every year?
It's a symbiosis relationship for x86 and ARM, Don't undermine x86 (aka Intel & AMD)...ARM and x86 need each other.
10 nm dock your smartphone
"Nobody buys devices because they can run windows"???
Yep
Re: You mean, except for about 90% of the market?
Disposable chips, because, people don't keep them as long as Intel chips
So, there is a need for ARM to ship that many, because, the devices which they come in, become obsolete and then, a new batch of ARMs are needed. If Intel devices became as disposable, you can be sure that, there would be many times as many being sold as ARMs.
Besides, ARMs are for toys. l)