Intel Demonstrates new 45nm Transistors and Conroe's Successor
by Anand Lal Shimpi on January 27, 2007 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Yields and Manufacturing
Intel is sharing its usual vague data on yields at 45nm, but at least this time we get pretty good reference points to previous manufacturing processes. The graph below shows defect density as a function of time; you should keep in mind that processors generally don't start shipping until the very bottom of these curves in order to make the economics work for the CPU maker.
As you can see, 45nm is on a curve very similar to that of Intel's 65nm process, which means that things are on track for a smooth introduction later this year barring any unforeseen issues.
Intel attributed the rough patches in the 90nm trend to difficulty associated with building the first strained silicon transistors and using low-k interconnect dielectrics. By comparison, 65nm and 45nm appear to be much smoother sailing.
By the end of this year the first 45nm chips will be built at two 300mm Intel fabs: D1D in Oregon and Fab 32 in Arizona. Starting in the first half of 2008, Fab 28 in Israel will begin producing 45nm parts and should reach full capacity by the end of the year.
Final Words
It's very rare to get this much information out of Intel this far in advance of an actual product launch, but we're not complaining. By the middle of this year, AMD will launch its next-generation microarchitecture that will hopefully be a far better competitor to Intel's Core 2 processors. But before the year is out, Intel will respond yet again with its Penryn family of processors. We're unsure exactly what segments will be targeted first with Penryn, but by sometime in 2008 you should be able to get Penryn based notebooks, desktops and servers.
The inevitable comparison to AMD's progress on 45nm has to be made, but at this point we don't know too much. AMD revealed its 45nm SRAM test vehicle about three months after Intel did last year, with a slightly larger SRAM cell size (0.370 um^2 vs. 0.346 um^2 for Intel). The main focus for AMD at this point is the transition to 65nm; we're finally starting to see Brisbane cores available for purchase, but the highest clock speed offerings are still built on 90nm.
For Intel, we see continued strengthening and a roadmap that has a lot of promise. Penryn should be out sometime in the second half of this year, followed by a brand new architecture under the codename Nehalem. Nehalem will also be the first time we get to see an architecture change post-Core 2 under Intel's new tick-tock model of introducing new architectures every two years. It's quite possible that in the next two years Intel will have made the CPU industry far more exciting than it has been in the previous five (Core 2 launch withstanding).
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
59 Comments
View All Comments
Viditor - Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - link
It's amazing the number of people who have said that since Conroe was introduced...
In point of fact, Intel has dropped over the last year...
Frankly, neither Intel nor AMD will be making much headway while there's a price war on, though AMD will probably regain their losses in the second half of the year.
Intel shares should be close to what they are now in a year (unless of course AMD has a terrorist attack) because (as they guided) their Gross Margins aren't expected to rise at all over the next year.
blackbrrd - Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - link
Actually Intel released the Core 2 Duo around Jul. 2006. At the time a share was worth around 18$ The current value on an Intel share is roughly 21$ (Jan. 30th 2007). In other words an increase of about 16% since they released the Core 2 Duo.Viditor - Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - link
Most of that was seasonality...At the beginning of 2006, Intel was $25.05...so year-on-year (and in a year that Intel released and had 6 months of Conroe), Intel dropped ~20%...
The key point is that while technology is important, Gross Margins are far MORE important!
BladeVenom - Saturday, January 27, 2007 - link
I wouldn't be so bullish on Intel until you've seen AMD's next chip.bamacre - Saturday, January 27, 2007 - link
I'm not worried about it. Intel is serious about being the performance leader right now. They know they have made mistakes, and they know what they have to do to keep the crown. And they also have the tools to keep it. Whatever AMD comes out with, Intel will counter. Just watch.Slappi - Saturday, January 27, 2007 - link
Wow 125%? You must of mortgaged your house and bought Jan 2009 calls then with all your money.Market Cap of 250-300 billion dollars for a company with falling margins, losing market share and estimates of 1.20-1.30 for 2007. That would give them a PE of 32 for a company in the middle of a price war.
I don't think so.
I wouldn't short or buy INTEL at this point. No Way. Too unpredictable right now. 35 to 45 within a year? Even if AMD went bankrupt and closed its doors I doubt you would see 45 in 12 months.
I would however buy AMD and sell CCs on em around 17-18. R600 K8L should do them for around 18 in the next 6 months. You could make good money selling calls 10% out for a few months.
bamacre - Sunday, January 28, 2007 - link
"falling margins, losing market share "That is changing as I type.
hubajube - Monday, January 29, 2007 - link
No it's not. He's spot on.yyrkoon - Saturday, January 27, 2007 - link
Spoken like a true, disgruntled AMD fan boi. (or 'person' if you like). When will you guys learn, it doesn't matter WHO makes the 'best' CPU, and that close competition means win, win, for whoever, using whatever.JumpingJack - Sunday, January 28, 2007 - link
Yep, don't like one bit do they ---- hey, lets compare the OC of a 65 nm AMD chip to the OC of an Intel 65 nm chip ....
Intel has removed the major stumbling block for device scaling that has plagued both 90 and 65 nm.... it only get's better from here.