Print 34 comment(s) - last by oTAL.. on Jan 22 at 2:51 PM

Full 65nm production in China with 45nm to come later

According to a report at CNET, Intel is in the process of launching a new fabrication facility in China. The new facility will focus on producing multi-core processors at the 65nm level. Inside sources were unable to give exact details on date and costs of the facility, but considering previous facility projects, the new plant is estimated to cost Intel roughly $2.5 billion to $3.5 billion USD. Just several years ago, a full plant would cost Intel nearly $5 billion.

Intel already has an established presence throughout China, making the new 65nm plant its third major operation in the country. Shanghai and Chengdu are two locations where Intel branches staff roughly 6,000 employees. CNET's sources indicated, however, that Intel would be making its China operation independent, thanks to the enormous market potential of China that is just second behind the U.S.

DailyTech previously reported that Intel was working on expanding its capacities in Vietnam, another hot region for tech companies. Although Intel's new plant investment will not be manufacturing actual processors, it would be contributing to such things as assembly and product testing.

While 65nm production levels out the mainstream, Intel announced near the end of 2006 that it will be introducing 45nm products sometime in the second half of 2007. The company announced not just one, but two fabrication facilities, capable of producing 45nm products.

Intel's Fab 32 in Arizona will be its first full facility in the U.S. in a long time and it will also be launching Fab 28 in Israel in 2008. Intel currently has over 15 products in development that will be manufactured at 45nm, but the company mentioned that until 2008 arrives, 65nm will be a key stage in processor and silicon development.

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: What processor tech do conservatives buy?
By masher2 on 1/17/2007 2:10:30 AM , Rating: 2
> "And the GDP grew dramatically as well...but you're right in a sense..."

I'm right, period. Your statement that Clinton "dropped Government spending" was incorrect.

> "...and unemployment dropped to almost nothing."

Unemployment under Clinton averaged 5.6%. Under Bush so far it has averaged 5.1%. And you know what? The policies of neither president have done much to affect the rate. Giving either of them credit is just plain silly.

> "The first 2 years Clinton was in office were fiscally his most successful..."

Anyone who believes a President can substantially affect the economy the first year they're in office has a lot to learn. Performance the year you're elected is primarily the result of policies put in place before you.

RE: What processor tech do conservatives buy?
By Viditor on 1/17/2007 2:55:00 AM , Rating: 2
Your statement that Clinton "dropped Government spending" was incorrect

Getting back to taking it in context, it was government spending as a percentage of GDP.

RE: What processor tech do conservatives buy?
By Ringold on 1/17/2007 6:33:34 PM , Rating: 2
1) A great analysis done by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis back before the 06 elections showed the government spending inexorably climbs under BOTH Democrat and Republican controlled governments. If I had to make a shot gun statement where a rifle would be preferred, I'd imagine WHERE the money went would be the key difference; hand outs versus defense.

2) My 18.x% number from 2001 is accurate enough; the Iraq war has boosted government spending, but while Democrats think it's some monstrous number, in terms of our gargantuan economy, it's not that big a deal. Neither is our deficit. It's also a temporary expense, which will likely end abruptly in 2008, for ill or good.

3) You obviously had no other reason than perhaps wanting to make an empty post in trying to correct that figure, as the government would've had to double in size to match Germany's % of GDP since 2001, and even if it had, it'd only match Germany in GDP share and still be far less socialist in its peddling in the market and civil rights. Nice try, though.

By Ringold on 1/17/2007 6:37:40 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and forgot about a couple other things..

4) The economy has also grown since 2001 along with government expenses, likely keeping a lid on it.

5) Those CBO numbers (I looked at likely the same thing you did) assume we sit on our hands with all these failing social programs of ours. We will not; we can not afford to, and American's wont want to be taxed like their poor European neighbors are. On the other hand, Germany's projected to have it even worse than the CBO thinks we will have it, as our population will remain younger over all than theirs. By the time we get anywhere near those estimates for 2050, we'll either have cut back or otherwise adapted, and Germany will either have cut back or become an economic disaster, so such long-range estimates are useless.

"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer
Related Articles
Intel Expands Vietnam Investments
November 15, 2006, 12:53 PM
Intel Talks 45nm Production
September 26, 2006, 2:19 PM

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM

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