Print 33 comment(s) - last by MrPoletski.. on Apr 21 at 9:52 AM

28nm technology promises 40% more performance than 45nm tech

The IBM Technology Alliance -- including IBM, Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing Ltd., GLOBALFOUNDRIES, Infineon Technologies, Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd., and STMicroelectronics -- have announced that they have jointly defined and are developing a 28nm, high-K metal gate (HKMG), low power CMOS process technology.

IBM reports that the 28nm technology can provide power-performance and time-to-market advantages for makers of a variety of power-sensitive and consumer electronics devices like MIDs and smartphones. The new technology creates improved leakage characteristics that will optimize battery life for next-gen mobile devices.

The alliance has outlined a migration path from the current 32nm process that is being used to the new 28nm technology that requires no costly and time-consuming redesign of the components according to IBM.

IBM's Gary Patton said in a statement, "Through this collaboration, IBM and its alliance partners are helping to accelerate development of next-generation technology to achieve high-performance, energy-efficient chips at the 28nm process level, maintaining our focus on technology leadership for our clients and partners."

IBM says that early work with some clients has shown that the 28nm technology can provide a 40% performance improvement while saving up to 20% in power compared to 45nm technology devices. The HKMG implementation also makes for one of the industry's smallest SRAM cells reports IBM at only 0.120 square microns.

ST-Ericsson's Jorgen Lantto said, "This statement of commitment to 28nm low-power technology by the IBM Joint Development Alliance is an important progression from 32nm high-k metal gate technology. Leaders in the mobile industry can utilize 28nm low-power technology to meet the increasingly aggressive demands for performance and improved battery life."

IBM recently walked away from purchase talks with Sun after Sun's board balked at IBM offer.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: AMD, Intel, and IBM
By nah on 4/18/2009 10:46:46 AM , Rating: 3
The Athlon had a difficult time competing the the P6, a processor that was introduced in 1995, about four years earlier

You should also mention that it had no problem beating a processor that was launched in 2000--more than a year and a half later--not to mention the Prescott--launched in 2003---which would have been called a new architecture by any other company

The Coppermine actually outperformed the much larger, and power hungry Athlon in many benchmarks, despite having a seriously crippled memory bus.

Any serious links here--the P III was crippled late in life beacuse of RDRAM and the i820 chipset--not exactly faults of AMD

The Athlon was never particularly good. Compared to the Pentium III, even when it could outperform it due to higher clock speeds, it ran much hotter, was much larger, and pulled a lot more electricity.

Some links to back this up would be nice--in any event, too tired to read and comment on the rest

RE: AMD, Intel, and IBM
By TA152H on 4/20/2009 6:49:19 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, the Pentium 4 beat the Athlon once the Northwood came out. But, if you actually had read my remark, I mentioned how bad the Pentium 4 was.

See the link I presented in the other comment for proof.

I'll agree with you the i820 wasn't a particularly good chipset, but I wouldn't use the word crippled with respect to performance. The price of the memory was really steep, and the performance was mediocre. But, why would anyone buy this chipset? The i840, also an RDRAM solution, was worth the extra cost, and offered excellent performance. There was also the lousy VIA chipsets (Apollo Pro 133a), and later the good VIA chipset (Apollo Pro 266), and the 815. The 815 kind of sucked though because you were limited to 512 MB.

The Coppermine was 106 mm2, including L2 cache. The Athlon at that time was 102 mm2, without a L2 cache. The power use for the Thunderbird was 54.3 watts at 1 GHz, the Coppermine was 26.1. Not even close, huh?

The Katmai, with no L2 cache on the processor, was 9.5 million transistors and 128 mm2, the original Athlon had 22 million and was a whopping 184 mm2 at .25. That's almost 50% larger. Once you add the L2 cache on later models, the ratio gets lower, of course, so this is a better view of the actual logic and L1 cache size. The Athlon's a lot bigger and used a whole lot more power, but where was the performance for this almost 50% increase in size, and more than double power use?

The irony is, Intel in their foolishness, created the same argument in favor of AMD with their even more dreadful Pentium 4. Even now, the poor AMD design haunts them, as the Phenom II is considerably larger than the Core 2, and roughly the same size as the i7, which rapes them and makes them like it. And it's really true, AMD is so proud of the i7. Rather than even try to compete with it, they meekly say that they used AMD's technology to make it. Yes, sure, that's why it's so much faster, it's surely a good clone. They didn't quite understand that Intel added features when they made sense, not before.

"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs
Related Articles
IBM Walks Away from Sun Negotiations
April 6, 2009, 11:20 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki