View Single Post
  #8 (permalink)  
Old March 8, 2010, 07:44 PM
Sagath's Avatar
Sagath Sagath is offline
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Petawawa, ON
Posts: 2,546

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oversized Rooster View Post
I read the whole article actually. A particular architecture is not necessarily tied to a specific manufacturing lithographic process.

Remember the Pentium 4? The Northwoods were 130nm and the Prescotts were 90nm. They were both the same Netburst architecture.

You're damn right I'm disappointed that new products are being rolled out using the 45nm process. Intel has clearly shown they CAN produce consumer products at 32nm so it's logical for me to feel disappointment when they don't shift existing quad core and new hexa and octa core CPUs to the 32nm process.

32nm = less heat, less power consumption, more overclocking with less voltage
Its not that easy.

I suggest you read this article: AnandTech: The RV870 Story: AMD Showing up to the Fight to get an idea of what die shrinking entails from a design standpoint

The TLDR is this. Switching nodes usually means a complete redesign of the chip. Shrinking components down means rerunning tracing, redesigning circuit pathing, moving components and die areas around, etc. Or, it means designing the chip in the first place with scalability to the next node in mind. Intel didn't bother with it. Why? Because its a lot easier to build a monolithic eight core chip on a mature known process, then hope and pray all 8 cores work on a new process you just started on...

But I'm sure they are hiring guys like you to fix their business model for them. Actually, I heard they just fired all their PhD engineers with 10+ years of schooling, and 5+ years of job experience to open a slot up!
Reply With Quote