![]() |
Disposing of 'Intel Inside'
Intel may be in serious trouble. It’s just not obvious on the spread sheets and will not be apparent for four and more years later when work performed this year starts appearing on those spread sheets. Symptoms start when you look at its top manager. Paul S. Otellini is the first non-engineer to run the company. Otellini studied economics in U of San Francisco and then an MBA from University of California at Berkeley. Many new employees include software developers, sociologists, ethnographers, even doctors to help develop products. He lays particular emphasis on marketing expertise because he thinks the only way Intel can succeed in new markets is by communicating more clearly what the technology can do for customers. This is the same mentality that Lucent used to even undermine the Bell Labs. Obvious application only undermined and destroyed the genius in Bell Labs. Otellini is talking the same way having no experience where the work gets done.
Instead of remaining focused on PCs and other processor related functions, Otellini is changing Intel to play a key technological role in a half-dozen fields, including consumer electronics, wireless communications, and health care. And rather than just microprocessors, he wants Intel to create all kinds of chips, as well as software, and then meld them together into what he calls "platforms." Intel got where it is by doing what it did productively AND nurturing others to do same or compatible functions into a system. For example, computer chip sets, modems, video cards, etc are all contributors to making Intel innovative and productive. Intel defined a strategic objective, then designed and controlled the heart of a system design that all others contribute to. Some of those successes are USB, AGP video, PCI bus, power supply standards, video standards, Ethernet, wireless computing, most of the mobile computer functions, and the so many ways of powering and powering down a system. So Otellini will take all this work from others to make Intel a better company? Somehow compete against its own partners? Some of Intel's problems were already created by Barrett - the previous boss who followed a legendary Andy Grove. But symptoms of a company in even deeper trouble are demonstrated by how Otellini will solve these problems. They intend to blow up Intel's branding; a fifth-best-known brand worldwide. Intel will "clear out the cobwebs" and kill off many Grove-era creations. Intel Inside? The Pentium brand? The widely recognized dropped "e" in Intel's corporate logo? All will be eliminated - as if redesigning fenders on a GM car will fix the problems inside. But remember, Otellini is an MBA and does not come from where the work gets done. His solutions will only be what he can see - not where problems really exist. Somehow rebranding Intel will solve everything? Intel's problems started with Pentium 4 when the architecture got so large that a chip could not be produced reasonably. The solution was to optimize compilers so that Pentium 4 would remain faster. Intel's genius was in processing and manufacturing that others could not do equal or better. Smaller transistors, less heat, faster switching times, introduction of the most advanced new process technologies and materials. This combined with partners who were some of this nation's best corporations - Microsoft, Dell, Compaq, HP, the so many video and BIOS manufacturers, modem designers, chipset designers, memory manufacturers, and networking companies. All partnered with or had their designs defined by Intel. Well Intel started to hit a brick wall. Its advanced manufacturing abilities were confronting limits of transistors. Its architects had not kept up their microarchitecture. And its management under Craig Barrett apparently were too busy looking at spread sheets to, instead, see a technology barrier approaching. Suddenly last year, Intel canceled all new chip designs because heat and other problems made the Pentium too difficult. Suddenly the new Intel architecture was created due to an ignored problem - and created in an emergency solution - a dual core chip design. This being ironic because Dr Craig Barrett's background is material science with over 40 papers in the science. He should have seen it coming. Well Intel recently hyped a whole new microarchitecture to fix the weakest part of a Pentium design. Will it solve Intel's recent loss of one title - 'fastest server processor' - to AMD? So Intel must address its product line - technically. Instead Otellini wants to diversity the company into doing what its so many product partners accomplish. Somehow he thinks the GM corporate strategy will save Intel. Somehow putting Intel in direct competition with Texas Instruments and other so innovative companies will make Intel better? The guy must be an MBA in the tradition of Carly Fiorina - who received a same early analysis from this author for same reasons. She too hyped the word innovation while doing the classic bean counter shuffle. This is not good for Intel, Intel consumers, or America. It reminds me of how AT&T decided all other computer manufacturers were incompetent and that AT&T would become the new power in computing. AT&T was also destroyed by MBA management with the same new philosophies. Their soulution - buy and destroy NCR. AMD - a German processor manufacturer - is quietly eating away at most of Intel's product line. Intel's only promising processor markets are in its Pentium M series - mobile computing. Even its non-volatile memory business may be in trouble without a breakthrough new technology product. |
AMD is based in Sunnydale, California. California is not now, nor has it ever been a part of Germany.
Intel's problems did not start with the Pentium 4. The design of the Pentium 4 was motivated by marketing: because consumers judged CPUs by clock speeds, they sacrificed speed and power for high clock speeds. The early 1.5 GHz Pentiums 4s were, if I recall correctly, slower than the 1.0 GHz Pentium 3s. |
Yea the netburst arch sucked balls, everyone knows that but the newest chips are looking might fine, centrino was very nice, the core duo and upcoming quad ones that will be in the new power macs are looking like very nice procs indeed. Demos of the latest chips I saw were spanking AMD. AMD is also now a generation behind in fabs and Intel will have it's next gen out before AMD does.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Therefore Pentium 4 architect solution was to remove as many functions as possible. One operation that suffered from a 'diet' were SI/DI operations. To make this 'Jenny Craig' processor work fast enough, compilers had to arrange code in proper order. Now spin doctors entered. A Pentium 4 executing non-optimized code would run quite slow. For example, SI/DI functions would drag that processor into long wait states if code was not properly ordered by a compiler. At that time, AMD processors were still significantly slower but were selling at discount prices to attract customers. After the K-5 fiasco, AMD was finally making a marketable processor. But AMD was not making profits since their still inferior processor had to sell at discount prices. K-6 was still a dog. But the first dog that demonstrated AMD could finally design a processor. To discover reality, always start with the technology - the details. So many instead jump on Rush Limbaugh type hype - never first ask for those technical details. Never challenge those who promote MBA school type reasons. I have been through this same 'myths verses reality' discussion on '8080/8085 verse Z-80', '80x86 verses 68000', and 'Pentium verses PowerPC' nonsense. In each case, the hype about marketing or other myths were proven false. The accurate answer was always found in technical details and who was top management. For example, so many would praise the 68000 because writing code was easier. IOW they were myopic. All those 'flexible' op codes also meant hardware was more difficult to manufacture and design. As a result, the 680x0 (68050?) self destructed because the 68000 architecture was that poor. But you could not tell that to programmers who typically had no science education AND who did not see the entire picture. Same reasoning explains why architecture of a Pentium 4 design was its weakness. A weakness that was masked by so many other and superior aspects within Intel Corporation. A weakness all but recently acknowledged by Intel with their recently announced new cores - said to have 'superior' microarchitectures. Without those details, then one really does not know what is and is not better. Those details suggest serious problems for Intel - made worse by a new top executive who talks too much like Carly Fiorina. |
Quote:
AMD is currently winning at the upper end (server) market. Their HyperTransport has been successful and may even eliminate the North bridge. HyperTransport is on the board signalling at gigahertz - which should raise your eyebrow IF you appreciate the details. Too many recent Intel designs - which once rarely happened - are missing design deadlines. Mistakes have been found too late in the design process. Intel equivalent to HyperTransport, called Coherent Scalable Transport, has been delayed for both Pentium and Itanium architectures. This by itself means little. But lately Intel had been making too many such mistakes - far more than the Intel that was run by Grove, Moore, and (forgot his name). These details today are what cause spread sheet to reflect those realities four and ten years later. Cray has recently assessed AMD and Intel products. Their bottom line is that the long term projections from both companies means AMD wins. It suggests what is happening in upper end product markets. But then Cray has never been a successful company once the MBAs decided to use GaAs technology rather than innovate - massive parallel architectures. For example, Cray lost $200million in 2004. They have repeatedly been close to bankruptcy because MBAs took over the company. Cray is playing catchup even to their own employee, Stephen Chen, who proposed a massively parallel architecture (that MBAs rejected) and who is now running a Cray competitor - Galactic Computing. What Cray is calling a major innovation - blade processors - well, if you have a grasp of details, then you appreciate why that may be more hype and less innovation. IOW when Cray choses AMD, well, one must also look at who might be doing the choosing - another detail. |
Which new procs did AMD announce? I'm not aware of any AMD proc coming out before them. HT is nice but it's not like AMD developed it alone and the CSI (Scalable Coherent Interface) delay was the fault of the ill-fated Intel India operation which has now been closed. CSI also has some notable advantages over HT and latency is way, way lower.
In a nearer timeframe Merom and Conroe are shaping up nicely and as it stands AMD has crap all in the mobile arena which is becoming larger and larger. Intel still has 80% of the market. AMD has done well to get where they are but I expect it's going to be neck and neck on peformance over the next couple of years. Put it another way, noone can deliver chips like Intel with the exception of maybe IBM, Apple would not have picked Intel if they didn't see a damn strong line of processors coming up. |
Quote:
Quote:
But what troubles me have been weak architecture designs in their upper end processors, their failure to make Itanium competitive, their complete avoidance for a 64 bit Pentium, that Intel was surprised by a sudden heat increase and an unexpected need for multi-cores, the Rambus memory fiasco, CSI delays, failures to dominate in the wireless markets (Wi-Fi and Wi-Max), failures to break into the mobile phone business which could be the disruptive technology to replace mobile computing, Intel’s failure to remain competitive in the non-volatile memory market (although rumors persist that Intel may reenter that market with a whole new technology), and numerous other misses. Especially worrying is that Intel appears to not have a long term strategic plan as it did 10+ years ago that resulted in North/South Bridge, AGP, PCI integration, USB, flat memory models, the many powerdown methods, and simpler peripherals by putting more compression/decompression functions within the processor. Where is the new strategic objective for hardware? It appears Intel has none; therefore shotgunning innovation rather than integrating it in a fashion that made Intel so successful. Intel's success that included going smaller faster - going directly to 65 nm technology and making it work, its ability to finally close a deal with Apple - Intel has been repeatedly talking and building an Apple with Intel chips, and their success with Pentium M all are achievements. And of course, nobody can mass produce so many more advanced chips so quickly like Intel. That manufacturing and material processing ability has always been an Intel crown jewel which is why previous posts about strained silicon, ovonyx unified memory, high K-dielectrics, and spintronics always include references to Intel. But AMD keeps eating more of Intel's pie - which Zilog Z-80, Motorola 68000, IBM Power PC, and Transmeta, etc all promised and never could even come close to delivering. AMD is the first competitor to remain and even grow competitive to Intel. Not because AMD is doing things better. I fear a severe management weakness starting to take hold in Intel. This because the new top man talks too much like Carly Fiorina and John Young; both caused bad times in HP. |
Quote:
|
VPro might be the public name for Merom/Crusoe/Woodcrest, the release window fits perfectly, as does the release order (merom last).
|
VPro
VPro is the marketing name for their built-in hypervisor, which will allow you to run multiple OSes at once.
AMD has the same technology, code-named Pacifica. In other words, these chips will have the same functionality IBM's old mainframes did in the 1970's. Part of the plan, apparently, is to run one OS as the base, trusted OS, and then run Windows or Linux on top of that. This, combined with EFI, has big-brotherish potential. However, for those of us who want to run multiple OSes, this means that you'll be able to run Xen, VmWare, Parallels, or your choice of software and run multiple operating environments at native speed. Who is to say that Microsoft won't take something small and stable, such as Singularity (their research OS), and use that as the root OS to prevent you from doing things? Heck, if I were MS, I'd have something booting up in EFI that's non-legacy such as Singularity or a custom build of OpenBSD (they already ship large chunks of it in UNIX Services for Windows), have that OS simulate a BIOS, and then load Vista on top of that. "Instant" circumvention of people attempting to do things via the HW by BIOS traps. And, AMD and Intel support it. Otherwise, on Intel vs. AMD here....Intel does have one good division which designed the Pentium M, and may have worked on its successors, which will come out this year. Intel Israel may have saved their butts by reworking an already existing architecture (the P6) instead of starting from scratch (the P4). I may be a little off on this, but remember the last time this happened? Intel designed a new chip from scratch, and after cutting their losses, released a new chip which was based off of the old one in some way. Oh yeah, it happened twice :). We call them the i432 and i960. The i432 or whatever it was called was eclipsed by the 386, and the i960 was eclipsed by the 486 and Pentium. Intel's biggest failure has been the Itanium. After billions upon billions of dollars, and hiring many of the best compiler people in the business, they've only succeeded in hitting the niche markets. It is also not x86 compatible, and apparently is incredibly hard to program for. The only Itaniums I have heard of run HP-UX or Linux. AMD, on the other hand, took an existing design, worked with it to include HyperTransport links on the chip, and made something which was less expensive to manufacture and had a lower cost for SW development by supporting already-existing tools and environments. Intel tried to go with the bigger and faster route. AMD just made it incredibly attractive to have an Opteron. |
According to EE Times, vPro and Viiv are limited functions that don't transport well across the product line. This so different from a productive Intel that once created a roadmap for PC advancement (DIB) that included new video standards, PCI bus (that includes PnP abilities), North/South bridge with memory interface, USB, hardware functions that made sleep and hibernate possible, and even banged Sony Toshiba heads together so violently as to create a single DVD standard.
An industry analyst says, "vPro is not being well-received by the Pc channel partners as it adds undue cost and complexity to the enterprise market". This would be consistent with so many changes announced by Otellini that sound more like rebranding and no technical innovation. These are characteristics also found in AT&T when it started a 20 year self maculating process to cost control itself to death. Intel's problems first became apparent when AMD introduced HyperTransport - and Intel did not even have anything in planning and eventually came out with 3GIO. Intel remained in denial about NAND non-volatile memory. It remained with NOR technology and is said to be losing money. Recently it teamed with Micron to play catchup in the NAND market - too late. But Intel is now said to be separating memory production from processor production - step one in selling off its memory business. If true, then all this promise from Intel for OVC memory may have been mythical. One shocking hint that Intel management does not get it. Intel intends to create a new architecture every two years instead of every four. Reminds me of another American IC manufacturer who decreed a new IC every week would make a market leader. Therefore they introduced numerous ICs that disappeared - nobody wanted them. But on spread sheets analysis, this was a perfect solution. How could the accountants have gotten it wrong? Maybe they had no idea what innovation was? Intel's problem is not that others 'catch-up' with Intel architectures within four years. The problem is that Intel's architects since and including the P4 had pathetic designs. Since the limits of transistors (gates that are only 3 atoms thick) have created a brick wall, the Intel crown jewel (semiconductor manufacturing advances) have little room to keep advancing. This brick wall and a superior architecture is why AMD with less manufacturing abilities have now created superior high end processors. Yes, Intel's crown jewel does mean Intel can do more with less power / less heat. But this crown jewel by itself no longer can make Intels faster than AMDs. IOW a 'new architecture every two years' says Intel's new MBA boss does not get it. He does not understand where the problem lies and instead implements an MBA 'numbers' solution. This myopia also explains why Intel had to cancel some almost completed single core processor designs - because management finally listened to technical people too late. Intel's architecture blindly stuck to a single core design when they long ago should have realized a problem created by architectures that just were not competitive. And then there is this blind allegiance to Itanium long after they should have had a 64 bit Pentium to fall back on. Readers of Tracey Kidder's "Soul of a New Machine" will appreciate how major this paragraph is. Finally even long time Intel user, Dell, has finally conceded to AMD processors. Whereas Intel still has a low power Centrino dominance, Intel has lost its title in server application - high end processors - 32 bit processors that don't have the speed, no 64 bit Pentium, and the flawed Itanium that long ago would be canceled if not protected by HP. BTW, one symptom demonstrates why Intel lost that title - Hyper Transport created by AMD and used by numerous other processor and sysetm companies such as Transmeta, Apple Computer, Cisco, PMC Sierra, Sun Microsystems, Broadcom, and NVIDIA. AMD is now doing what many years ago is what Intel did. |
TW,
The "Yamhill" 64-bit Pentiums are out there. AMD was first with them on the market, however, as Intel tried to artificially push the Itanium with HP. They had the 64-bit Pentium long before, but MBAs wanted the Itanium chip. As of now, I hardly hear about an Itanium implementation that isn't either HP-UX or Linux. Vendors are having massive trouble moving their code from PA-RISC to Itanium, and unless there's a major performance increase, they don't. vPro is for desktop and server chips, and is a response to try and get Linux to do what VMWare does already. Xen, the next generation of VMWare, and other virtualization products build off of it. AMD, however, has their own implementation, and vendors are going to have to support both. The Opteron is eating Intel's server lunch. It costs less than the Xeon or Itanium, and does more. Intel put their head in the sand. AMD has some innovation issues as well (the next generation of chips, K9 or K10), but they're taking market share because they are delivering what customers want at low prices. |
Intel has a long history of promoting products that fail. It comes with the industry that Intel is in. Some of the many processor lines attempted and failed include i860 series, i960, 80x9x series, and DSP processors. In each case, Intel management stuck with them until it was clear the line was not going to be successful. Two lines that did succeed were the 80x86 series and the Harvard architecture that ended with the roundly successful 8051.
Intel also dabbled in processors for cell phone. The mScale series may be a new successful market. Their attempts in MIPs were not. Other product lines pioneered or marketed in the Intel line were bubble memory, dynamic RAM, static RAM, non-volatile NOR memory, modem chipsets, Ethernet technology, Expanded/Extended memory standards, USB technology, and various software packages. Intel created standards for plugNplay, PCI Bus, AGP video standards, and so many other concepts that were Intel product and industry standards. Intel literally created standards for all type semiconductor memory. Many of these businesses by themselves would have been primary and successful product lines in other companies. Any yet these same successes have only been secondary businesses in Intel. So what, besides Pentium and mScale, is part of Intel's future? Strangely, Intel's new (alternative) product lines don't even appear to be consistent with Intel's past history. I just don't know of any new products that could be as successful as the 8051 line, USB standards, or non-volatile memory. Previously when a product line was maturing, then Intel sold off that product line while it was still marketable. They probably should have been selling off the memory business long ago OR developed alternative for the failing NOR EEPROM business. Instead, Intel did nothing - very uncharacteristic of Intel. These symptoms repeatedly suggest a top management that does not have a viable grasp of a primary management function - the strategic objective. To have a grasp requires that management come from where the work gets done - as Grove, Noyce, and Moore did. Obviously early efforts by the new management leaves me unimpressed and in dread - similar to my early criticisms of John Young and Carly Fiorina. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Meanwhile, a more interesting point is AMD's strategic objectives. A tripling of production? AMD implies the MBA now running Intel will not solve Intel's management problems. |
Quote:
I think the competition between AMD and Intel is a good thing. I don't get your hand-wringing over Intel's current issues. |
Quote:
When I was using AMD products, company was TX – I believe a spin off from Texas Instruments. That HQ moved to Sunnyvale was a surprise. I don't understand what is meant by 'hand-wringing'? Does that imply a feeling or frustration? If so, then eliminate that assumption. Intel has severe product problems that I suspect are deeper than publicly realized. Too much new product development in the past few years - since Andy Grove moved upstairs - has stumbled (sometimes repeatedly). It was the same classic cancer that attacked HP both under John Young and Carly Fiorina. Among other things (assuming I am accurate), this is an opportunity to make money on the stock market - if you have more balls than I do. They are facts. Will this new marketing guy turn Intel around? History says a resounding no. History says Intel will only keep losing market share just like GM and for same reasons. Apparently AMD in Germany is making the same bet. |
I just did a little research on this.
The Register, the UK tech publication, reported that Intel lost half of a percentage point of market share going from the last quarter of 2005 to the first quarter of 2006. However, AMD was up less than a third of a percentage point in that same time period, with Transmeta and VIA picking up the remainder of Intel's great, overwhelming loss. However, increased sales of x86 laptops help to boost Intel's market share in an area where it already has an overwhelming advantage, and AMD's new Turion is a laptop battery killer. AMD used a little sleight-of-hand to make it appear that the Turion is superior to the Pentium M, but failed to mention to anybody that it did not compare similar systems. In other words, the Turion's perceived advantage is bupkis. Speaking of laptops ... As the Register noted elsewhere, Intel's Centrino brand covers not only the laptop processor, but the computer's logic board and the wireless rig and is a stronger marketing proposition then a brand focused solely on the processor. And some final notes about market share: Intel now owns 100% of the marketplace for processors in new Apple Macintosh computers. Oh, by the way ... Intel still holds 81.7 percent of the world's processor market share for x86-based computers. So, um, what was it you were complaining about, exactly? |
You're talking about Intel's past and present. tw is talking about their future.
|
True about the laptop and Apple markets, however AMD just signed up the biggest customer of all, Dell. They already have IBM and HP as customers. In the segment of the market where the margins are very high, AMD is making major inroads.
Intel spent billions on the Itanium and ended up having to issue processors based on AMD's x64 instruction set (the Yamhill processor) to keep up. This reminds me of when IBM was king, and Compaq shipped the first 386-based PCs. Intel may have the market now, but that doesn't mean so for the future. Oftentimes decisions made for the long term a few years back come back to bite you in the future. This is esp. true for Intel. While Conroe and the new chips may be excellent chips, they may be a stopgap that shows less innovation in future designs. Intel's Israel division basically handed them the Centrino, Core, Core Duo, and Core 2 Duo chips because they utilized sound engineering practice and built on proven technology, while the rest of the company pushed NetBurst, which was not so sound :). What I believe that TW is saying is that Intel's misstep with Netburst, which lasted approx. 7-8 years, and their dalliance with Itanium, which has lasted much longer, may have shifted valuable engineering resources away from much more practical long-term projects. AMD has come in with a long-term plan for x86-64, and now has the backing of the major hardware and software vendors, including Microsoft, Red Hat/IBM (since IBM Global Services is providing a large chunk of their enterprise support), Novell, EMC (and VMWare), HP, Oracle, and many of the major Open Source operating systems. They also did not lock up their interconnect technology (HyperTransport) in licenses and costs. Intel, on the other hand, has waffled incredibly on this front, esp. with Itanium, NetBurst, and the x64 extensions. CIO-level people are beginning to see this, and it is damaging. It's going to really hurt HP first with the Itanium decisions. The current PA-RISC to Itanium transition involves a very complex migration to Itanium, as binaries from PA-RISC don't run very well on Itanium. This means that you have to re-qualify the software you utilize on Itanium, and possibly purchase new licenses for Itanium, which cost a lot of money. By the time you factor in what you pay for performance, those Opteron boxes seem a lot more attractive just on price alone. When you also realize you can utilize the same staff and tools to maintain hardware across the enterprise for your large-scale applications (SAP, Peoplesoft, Exchange, Oracle) as you do for your middle-tier and departmental applications, you also see the power of what AMD has brought to the market. The big companies that buy truckloads of this stuff see this, and also have a much higher profit margin on what they buy. I think Dell actually loses more money than they say on their consumer PCs due to the fact that they can charge much higher margins for their business lines to make up for it. The overall cost of equipment is not just in the equipment, but how much power and manpower it takes to provide a certain amount of computing power to get the job done for the customer. AMD's solution provides a very large amount of power at a very low cost per watt for the large-scale applications, and scales out to a very large scale once reserved for non-x86 chips. They also have backward compatibility which has been tested back to DOS 2.11 with the AMD64 chips, and will support unmodified versions of Windows on their chips. You can run what you already have on their chips without the cost of upgrading the applications as well. Intel doesn't have a long-term plan for that scenario. People like tw and I, who work within those parameters, understand what is brought to the table by both parties. If a proposal from a vendor comes across my desk requiring a very large amount of hardware to be purchased, vs. a solution which is more sane in the hardware, software, and infrastructure requirements, the latter will always win. |
Quote:
|
NetBurst gave AMD a window and they've done a damn fine job of taking advantage of that but Conroe, Woodcrest & merom are shaping up very well indeed & AMD still haven't sorted their supply problems.
Of course they eventually will, and Intel will with any luck (hey, I'm in Apple hardware these days, I want Intel to make some nice stuff) continue kicking ass with the new gear. That should result in one very competitive market that we, as consumers benefit from. Awesome. |
Early speculation suggested Intel would divest its memory division. Instead, on Jun 6, 2006 from CBSMarketWatch is a different part of Intel that may be divested. Intel spent up to $9billion to create this group that may sell for $1billion:
Quote:
|
From EE Times of 12 Jun 2006:
Quote:
|
Intel is addressing previous mistakes directly traceable to top management. For the first time in a while, Intel may actually succeed in some engineering accomplishments - may have products that turn back the AMD challenge. Intel is testing 45 nm IC designs when the competition is still struggling with 65 nm designs. Intel is finally addressing multiprocessing as a solution to what would otherwise require a 10 Ghz processor.
Tomorrow, Intel will announce an accomplishment that other have been struggling with for years. IBM was actually in production when their high-K (Dupont? designed) material pealed off ICs during manufacturing. Intel will be using a high-K material in 6 months in processors. AMD-IBM-Toshiba consortium probably will not have same for at least another year. Original transistors were germanium. Silicon replaced germanium for one key reason - glass - silicon dioxide. Germanium oxide (as a glass insulator) was not possible. Push (or turn) on a facuet so that water enters from mains and exits via tap. Transistors work similar. On one side of glass (silicon dioxide) is a channel that permits electrons to enter on one side and leave on other channel end. To switch (on and off) that channel, electrons are removed or piled on the other side of that glass. That other side is called the 'gate'. To make a transistor run faster, that glass was made thinner. Less electrons into the gate could switch that channel faster. Well that glass is as thin as 3 atoms thick. Therefore electrons piled into gate were leaking across glass. You feel that leaking as heat; CPUs created as much heat as a 60 or 100 watt incandescant bulb. Semicondutor manufactures have done just about everything to solve that smaller and thinner glass problem. But everyone knew what was needed. Glass needed a high-K material. Intel has been experimenting for years with hafnium - having eliminate other possible solutions long ago. In six months, Pentiums using that new material will be sold maybe using 45 nm transistors. The actual buzz words are high-K and low-K materials. To make that glass requires higher-K materials so that glass can be thicker; gate operates like 3 atom thick glass without electrons leaking through that glass. Low-K materials means signals travel across the IC faster. Low-K materials are not as necessary since 10 Ghz processors are not in the pipeline. But high-K materials have again averted a brick wall. An innovation schedule called Moore's Law is met again. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:30 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.