Intel details 10nm, 7nm, 5nm process roadmap
As semiconductors move to smaller process nodes, the problems mount up - but Intel is looking to a 2015 unveiling of a 10nm-based chip.
In semiconductor manufacturing, process is king: the term refers to how chip designs are shrunk from their giant human-viewable schematics down to teeny-tiny production parts with components several times thinner than a human hair. The better a company's process, the smaller the final chip; the smaller the final chip, the better the performance. Smaller process nodes also mean more chips from a particular silicon wafer, albeit tempered with the usual yield problems as issues with new process nodes are ironed out.
The majority of the industry is working on a 22nm process at present, including Intel's recently-launched Ivy Bridge processors. The next step for the semiconductor industry is 14nm, which Intel is planning to introduce with its Broadwell processors - the successor to the new microarchitecture Haswell parts, based on the same 22nm process as Ivy Bridge as part of Intel's 'tick-tock' development cycle.
All companies in the semiconductor industry are looking beyond 14nm, however - and Intel is no exception. According to slides obtained by X-bit Labs, Intel has already begun research on sub-14nm processors with a view to getting 10nm parts into development for a 2015 roll-out.
According to the research and development pipeline espoused by the company's slides, 2015 will see the production of semiconductor components based on a 10nm process size, quickly followed by 7nm and 5nm parts.
The company has an uphill struggle ahead of it, however: the smaller the process, the larger the challenge. As the component sizes decrease and the gaps between components get smaller, numerous issues raise their heads. The biggest of these, current leakage, calls for a radical rethink to how semiconductors are designed in order to smash what has been termed the '10nm physical gate length barrier.'
Some companies have already developed prototype technology for the sub-10nm process, including IBM's carbon nanotube transitor, which is running in the lab based on a 9nm process size. Intel, however, isn't detailing the precise route its own research is taking, except to explain that it's in the process of researching new lithography, materials and interconnect techniques to address the issues of shrinking component sizes.
Intel's slide deck also explains that its 14nm production, due to begin in 2013 for the Broadwell family, will take place in its D1X Oregon, Fab 42 Arizona and Fab 24 Ireland facilities following 22nm upgrades to the D1D/C Oregon, Fab 32/12 Arizona and Fab 28 Israel plants.
Should Intel hit its schedule of a 10nm part by 2015, it will likely find itself ahead of its rivals in process technology - a move which will do nothing to lessen the company's growing dominance of the mainstream processor industry.
Previous Article
39 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyDoesn't seem that long ago that I was getting excited for 45nm... 65nm seemed small enough already at that point.
dunx
I would like to think alternative semiconductor designs will deal with any thermal problems. Surely that is what they would be working on?
I'm guessing they're already thinking about how to deal with the thermal issues given the poor thermal properties of Ivy Bridge.
the CPU itself is great, performs well as you said. but the processor as a product is disappointing due to the poor thermal interface materials used between the die and the heatspreader. hence the "heat issue" mentioned.
solution is to change manufacturing process by soldering the heatspreader onto the die. at least that should work for a few years until 7nm made the "heat issue" resurface.
once overclocked is the temp dif
at 4.5ghz the temps are aproaching 100c on most poor air coolers really do need a decent chip + cooler to get a overclock going
As Wyx said to be honest. Just because they have a lower TDP doesn't mean they have better temperatures. As others have said OC temps are abysmal.
Pointless processor is pointless, at least in a consumer environment. You're hard pressed to find software that utilises anything more than 4 cores, let alone 32. In a server environment though, it'd be a good move.
dunx
The main reason for the poor thermal properties is the use of TIM (as Wuyanxu has stated) rather than Fluxless solder. A japanese review site managed to get a 14-24 degree Celsius reduction in temperature by using Coolaboratory TIM.
http://www.techpowerup.com/165882/TIM-is-Behind-Ivy-Bridge-Temperatures-After-All.html
Something did! Officially a weather balloon!
Anyway, nomenclature aside, I understand the point - IB chips get hotter than they would if the process was different - but the temperature in itself is pretty meaningless. What counts is how the chip performs, and (heat issue or no heat issue) IB chips are epic.
*taps nose knowingly*
I know I read the article ;) That's still hotter than SB though.
SB was epic due to the massive increase in performance over Lynnfield and Nehalem. IB is not epic due to the heat increase and minimal performance increase.
Now I, like most people on this site, am a fiddler by nature. I'll happily swap components in and out of my PC all day long. I'll swap CPU HSF's on and off & muck about experimenting with different TIMS - I'll change my GPU's HSF. No problem. I'll even, at a push, do a little light modding.
But bugger me: I absolutely draw the line at sawing up my brand new CPU to put better quality TIM INSIDE the processor case! Whatever Intel/AMD decide to do on that point, I'm afraid I for one am stuck with it... :)
By the sounds of things, Intel are sticking with silicon. It's a risky strategy: about 5 years ago it was said (and it's mentioned in the article, too) that 10nm was the limit, and we could go no further. It'll be interesting to see what Intel has up its sleeves to reach 5nm!
Concrete ;)
Efficiency will improve and the size shrink, pretty soon they’ll get it down to where a human single organism can power up the processor.
IB isn't epic - SB was. I'm very curious to see how Haswell works out. Beyond that? Could be that this is just a bit of propaganda Intel let leak. They're at 22, and they're going to be at less than half that in three years? I've got my doubts.
Unless I'm simplifying it too much. Oh wait I am, there's also considerations of defective transistors in terms of density...
Fair enough. Can we chalk it up to you speaking "that funny English"? :P
from a business point of view, you'll want as small die as possible.
I think it's funny that everyone is complaining about heat issues. Let's see what happens if we take a stock IB heatsink and use it with a 3 Ghz Prescott at stock speeds! Sure the stock temperatures haven't really changed, but the equipment needed to cool the chip to the same temperature has most certainly changed! Used to be you would need a stock 2.5" thick aluminium cooler with a copper core to reach temps of 50c to 60c. The CPUs out now will do better than that with an aluminium and copper cored cooler that is about 5/8" thick! Case in point, the computer I am on now is a Pentium D 2.8 Ghz at stock speed with a stock cooler, the side panel is not present, and it is running at 60c with just a web browser open to this page. The i3 next to me is running at about 45c idle with the stock 5/8" cooler. Where's this heat issue? These processors are designed to withstand up to 110c without damage. We're nowhere near that at the moment.
In my opinion, Intel is using a TIM because that's all that is needed. Sure, they could make the chips run cooler by using a different solution, but why would they? To a company like Intel, a few cents savings per chip will save them millions over the course of that chips manufacturing run time. In my experience TIM tends to last a good long time before it becomes an issue, maybe 8 or 10 years or so if the computer is kept relatively dust free. By that time, even your granny should be ready for a new computer.