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 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.