Linked by Andrew Youll on Tue 20th Sep 2005 19:24 UTC, submitted by kellym
Intel Chip firm Intel said it is developing an ultra low power version of the 65 nanometre process technology specifically for notebooks and other small devices. The firm said that with transistors on some chips over the billion mark, it has developed tech which it claims will cut down leakage by 10 000 times.
Order by: Score:
skewlin'
by JLF65 on Tue 20th Sep 2005 19:37 UTC
JLF65
Member since:
2005-07-06

Seems math isn't required for reporters anymore.

As evidence it quotes leakage current figures: 100nA per micron for the standard 65nm process compared to 0.01nA per micron for P1265.

Last I checked, 100/.01 was 10000, not 1000. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: skewlin'
by Andrew Youll on Tue 20th Sep 2005 19:54 UTC in reply to "skewlin'"
Andrew Youll Member since:
2005-06-29

The synopsis I used is the synopsis submitted by kellym, I just glanced over the linked piece, I will correct the error.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: skewlin'
by JLF65 on Wed 21st Sep 2005 02:38 UTC in reply to "RE: skewlin'"
JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

I wasn't faulting you, but the original article. The quote I used wasn't even from the linked article, but from another that had more info, but STILL had the same wrong figure. ;)

Reply Score: 1

You aint seen bad yet
by Nex6 on Tue 20th Sep 2005 19:41 UTC
Nex6
Member since:
2005-07-06

:)

very cool stuff, it would be great if laptops had battery life of like 12 hours. and PDA's etc had more like 20 hours.

-Nex6

Reply Score: 1

RE: You aint seen bad yet
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 05:43 UTC in reply to "You aint seen bad yet"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I would like to see at least 8 hours. Goes along with a typical work day (for most).

Reply Score: 0

and so it goes...
by MikeGA on Tue 20th Sep 2005 19:47 UTC
MikeGA
Member since:
2005-07-22

And away in his castle, Steve Jobs happily cackles to himself with glee.

(Wouldn't it be cool if Steve Jobs really did have a castle like that?)

Reply Score: 2

I call BS
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 20:11 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

We periodically hear announcements like this one from various chip manufacturers, and at the end they result in absolutely nothing. I don't see how this one will be any different given the overwhelming amount of technical explanation on how they will suddenly make things 1000 times better.

Reply Score: 0

RE: I call BS
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 22:21 UTC in reply to "I call BS"
Anonymous Member since:
---

It's marketing. They didn't claim 10000 times better processor, or 10000 times less power, they claimed 10000 times less leakage, but leakage is probably insignificant anyway.

Reply Score: 0

hey hey
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 20:15 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

And that's nothing! They said the processor will use
optical components and will run at 6.8ghz!!

Reply Score: 0

Correction..
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 20:16 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"10,000 time better" that is.

Reply Score: 0

Outsourcing?
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 20:25 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Perhaps they licensed some of the technology from this gentleman?

http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=11784

Reply Score: 0

RE: I call BS
by superstoned on Tue 20th Sep 2005 20:58 UTC
superstoned
Member since:
2005-07-07

i agree. and knowing the fact that the cpu power usage is not the bigest battery eater in a laptop, i think even if they decrease power usage of the cpu with 99.9% (1000 times smaller, yes) the whole laptop will only hold out slightly longer. on the other hand, they can increase clockspeeds and diesize this way, and create a more powerfull processor that uses as much or less power than the current Pentium M.

and THAT's interesting. much faster cpu, same power or lower.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: I call BS
by nimble on Tue 20th Sep 2005 21:23 UTC in reply to "RE: I call BS"
nimble Member since:
2005-07-06

i think even if they decrease power usage of the cpu with 99.9% (1000 times smaller, yes)

They're not claiming anything of the sort anyway.

The reduction was referring to leakage only. While that dominates when the processor is in sleep mode, leakage is fairly insignificant compared to the power consumed by switching transistors when the processor is busy.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: I call BS
by David Kuhn on Tue 20th Sep 2005 23:01 UTC in reply to "RE: I call BS"
David Kuhn Member since:
2005-07-03

Now the only thing they need is to start using OLED to save more power for the battery.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I call BS
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 22:40 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

> It's marketing. They didn't claim 10000 times better processor,
> or 10000 times less power, they claimed 10000 times less leakage,
> but leakage is probably insignificant anyway.
leakage is no way insignificant

With every shrinking step, leakage current increases exponently.

Leakage current is problematic because it increases as transistor threshold voltages (Vth) decrease. The move to the 130-nanometer technology node led to a significant rise in leakage power consumption. At 90 nanometers, leakage power can represent as much as 50 percent of the total power consumed by a chip.

Reply Score: 0

Cool...
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 01:09 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

If only they (Intel) woun't play dirty in other areas, I would be even more interested:

http://www.swallowtail.org/naughty-intel.html

But thats just me trolling...

-iMoron

Reply Score: 0

Better link
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 02:27 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I'm not sure if the inquirer web site is down or not, but I thought a better link may be Intel themselves:

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050920comp.htm

Reply Score: 0

more marketing hype??
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 03:32 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Hmm...ever since the P4 started Intel has been more a company about marketing hype than one of any real substance.

As far as I'm concerned Intel is just dishing out more BS marketing hype as usual. I'm just not convinced...

Reply Score: 0

billion mark?
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 09:10 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I think the billion mark y really one thousand millions mark (1.000.000.000 - 10^9 - where one billion are one million of millions i.e. 1.000.000.000.000 - 10^12 -).

Bye.

Reply Score: 0

RE: billion mark?
by iskios on Wed 21st Sep 2005 11:59 UTC in reply to "billion mark?"
iskios Member since:
2005-07-06

A billion is a thousand million. A trillion is a million million.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: billion mark?
by nimble on Wed 21st Sep 2005 12:24 UTC in reply to "RE: billion mark?"
nimble Member since:
2005-07-06

A billion is a thousand million. A trillion is a million million.

Depends where you are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion.

A British billion used to be 10^12, but as with many other things they're giving in to the Americans on that.

Intel is American of course, so we're talking 10^9 transistors.

Reply Score: 1

Quantum tunnelling
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 09:11 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I love these things. How long will it take to Intel until they claim they have supressed quantum tunnelling?

On the battery side, I'd prefer if someone made a screen as bright as a desktop one with less consumtion than today's laptop LCDs.

BTW: Does anybody know how important is tunnelling in current CPU's?

Reply Score: 0

1000, not 10000
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 09:21 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

It clearly says 1000 times (1.000), not 10000!

Reply Score: 0

RE: 1000, not 10000
by JLF65 on Thu 22nd Sep 2005 02:53 UTC in reply to "1000, not 10000"
JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

It clearly says 1000 times (1.000), not 10000!

Yes, the articles all linked to say 1,000. However, the leakage current reduction was given as 100nA to 0.01nA, which is 10,000. The Intel PR guy is the one who first said 1,000 which is what all the articles are quoting. I guess Intel's PR guy doesn't bother to double-check his figures with engineering. ;)

Reply Score: 1

Transmeta
by Smartpatrol on Wed 21st Sep 2005 16:46 UTC
Smartpatrol
Member since:
2005-07-06

Didn't Transmeta make these same claims? Where are they again? Low power is great but at the sake of what performance? or software CPU speed controllers.

Reply Score: 1

they say 1 000 times, not 10 000 times!
by Anonymous on Thu 22nd Sep 2005 05:55 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

i guess you should correct this.

Reply Score: 0