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.
quote: The Athlon was brilliant? Based on what?
quote: The Athlon had a difficult time competing the the P6, a processor that was introduced in 1995,
quote: about four years earlier. The Coppermine actually outperformed the much larger, and power hungry Athlon in many benchmarks,
quote: despite having a seriously crippled memory bus. A design so much larger, and so much later should have had no problems with it.
quote: The Pentium 4 also had problems with the Pentium III, so much that they had to artificially limit the Tualatin, and make it very expensive as well.
quote: The K8, despite being released almost a decade later, does not have the ability to schedule instructions as effectively, with respect to reads following writes, as the Pentium Pro did, despite that processor having been released in 1995.
quote: The Pentium Pro was always the best design, and as it got updated for the mobile market, and eventually became the Conroe, Penryn
quote: and Nehalem, it's shown rather clearly its superior lineage.
quote: 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.
quote: And again, the Pentium III was crippled by it's memory bus, not it's internal architecture.
quote: The K8 was an utter failure, and it was only the Prescott that hid that well.
quote: It was simply too close to the K7,
quote: and they must have been crazy to think Intel would always suck, especially when their mobile processors were always better than the K7 or K8.
quote: You're really lucky I'll even dignify your uninformed remarks with a response, but I will.
quote: The Alpha was not an architecture, it was an instruction set,
quote: and what made it fast, when it was, was that DEC's implementations were extremely expensive.
quote: There was nothing special about the instruction set, and many times during the lifetime of it, POWER was faster.
quote: Initially, it was a very high clock speed processor, whereas the POWER was IPC, but even that changed over time. Anyway, I was asking based on what was he saying the K7 was brilliant. In reality, it had nothing brilliant and was a prosaic design.
quote: Your remarks about processors coming out and not have good performance initially is absurd and ignorant. It didn't even make sense with respect to the Athlon, which initially did have a performance edge of the Pentium III. The Conroe raped the Pentium 4 and K8, and the i7 beats the Penryn, but you stupidly compared the low end with the high end. The fact remains, the high end i7 easily beats the high end Penryn. And it's very closely based on it.
quote: The Coppermine was based on the Pentium Pro, which was released in 1995. The Pentium II made some minor internal changes, mostly to run 16-bit software, since segmentation is rarely used in 32-bit software (well, technically, it is, but they use a 32-bit segment so it's irrelevant). The Pentium III was a Pentium II with SSE, nothing more. The Coppermine was a Pentium III with a different L2 cache arrangement, being on die instead of going through the "back-side bus".
quote: The 1.13 Pentium IIIs they pulled from the market were Coppermines, not Tualatins. They later found out it had problems with the L2 cache at that clock speed. The Tualatins could overclock easily to 1.6 GHz, but Intel priced them very high and keep the memory bus speed limited to 133 MHz.
quote: Nehalem is not a brand new architecture, it's very similar to the Penryn internally.
quote: The changes are mainly with the cache and memory architecture, and sometimes not even for the better (for example, the L1 cache is slower).
quote: You really need to do some reading before say things like this, it's very uninformed, especially since Intel doesn't even know it's a new architecture. Nor does AMD know the Phenom II is brand new. They thought the Bulldozer was going to be the new one. Maybe you should tell them so they don't do something really stupid. They need to know!
quote: The K8 was not even close to the first processor to move the memory controller to the processor.
quote: Intel didn't do it not because it was so difficult, but because it made no sense to.
quote: The Pentium 4 was too big, and the Conroe was better served with larger cache memory. With 45nm, it finally made sense.
quote: If you think the K8 was the first, look at the NexGen 586 processor, which came out in the mid-90s. There was nothing new about it. That doesn't make it a mistake, but it doesn't make it an innovation either.
quote: The Pentium III was limited by it's bandwidth tremendously, and that made RDRAM ill suited for it.
quote: The 840 chipset for the Pentium III was better though, having lower latency. But the Pentium III was just stuck with a single pumped bus, unlike the Athlon which was doubled, and the Pentium 4 which was quad-pumped. Both had much higher bandwidth and that crippled the Pentium IIIs performance.
quote: RDRAM was very effective with the Pentium 4, by the way, because the Pentium 4 could take advantage of its bandwidth.
quote: The Pentium III could not, and had the same problem with DDR, although DDR did not have the latency issues of RDRAM.
quote: The Phenom is a continuation of a failed design (the K7).
quote: The i7 is a continuation of an excellent design (the Pentium Pro).
quote: The Pentium 4 is, luckily, a dead design. It was designed as a marketing processor, since people bought things based on clock speed, and weren't so shrewd about understanding performance.
quote: Even so, it was competitive with the K7, generally outperforming it with the Northwood, and was competitive with the K8, but probably slightly slower overall. The damning thing was the size and power use. Kind of the same problem the Athlon had compared to the Pentium III.
quote: Luckily though, Intel got smacked around for the Pentium 4,
quote: and AMD is getting raped with its lousy processors.
quote: The market is smarter now, and that's a good thing. I'm still confused how AMD can still make such a bad processor for so long, unless they were foolish enough to believe the K8 was good before the Conroe exposed it as a power hungry, slow, inefficient design. Maybe the Pentium 4 did have a purpose, AMD actually thought they had a good design. Let's hope they know better by now and the Bulldozer gets it right.
quote: Still in defense of AMD, even though they clearly have bad designs, competing with Intel is a nightmare these days.
quote: The Atom is excellent,
quote: but with a bad chipset,
quote: and the i7 is just crazy good.
quote: Maybe they should get some help from IBM in design too, they clearly are out of their league. The POWER chips are looking really good, by contrast.
quote: One thing is for sure, the Bulldozer has to be good. If not, we're so screwed as customers, since Intel will command the market again, and we'll have to pay out the nose for processors. I wish IBM would buy AMD and provide real competition again.
quote: The Phenom and i7 are both derivative designs based on their predecessors. Even AMD and Intel do not deny this. AMD does say the Bulldozer is new though, but, I have my doubts.
quote: If you really do not believe the Phenom is the same, look at the resources they devote to x87. Since x87 is deprecated, and not even part of x86-64, no one would possibly want to do this.
quote: Also look at how the AGUs are part of the same ports as the ALUs. I don't think AMD would do that if they had to start over again, seeing how the Pentium III and its successors were more successful with a different design.
quote: In fact, if you think that the i7 is not a Penryn, look at the internals of the processor. They are essentially the same.
quote: ARM isn't a processor, it's an instruction set that processors are based on. You're comparing apples and oranges.
quote: Atom can run a whole lot of software, without a whole lot of power. ARM based processors can't run the software. That's kind of a big deal.
quote: I agree the chipset was a stop gap, but it should never have come to that. They new they were developing the Atom, and they should have been able to come up with something better.
quote: The Pentium 4, even the last Presler, did beat the K8 at some benchmarks.
quote: The performance on games was poor, but it was competitive in overall performance.
quote: But, it was huge and used so much power, being competitive isn't really such a good thing. And it generally was a little slower. The interesting thing is, if they had moved it to 45nm, it probably would have finally showed some merits, since the power use was a lot lower. No doubt it would never have matched Conroe though.