Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Intel's 45nm Chip due in 2007

M

MacBytes

macrumors bot
Original poster
Jul 5, 2003
18,275
0



Category: 3rd Party Hardware
Link: Intel produces 45nm chip
Description:: The chips are said to provide a 5x decrease in transistor leakage over 65nm chips, and a 20% improvement in switching speed. While these chips will not be shipping until mid-2007, the speed at which Intel cranks out faster chips is something very new and exciting to we Mac users who were saddled with the PPC roadmap which in recent years delivered only minor speed bumps every year or so.

Posted on MacBytes.com
Approved by Mudbug
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2006/01/25/intels-45nm-chip-due-in-2007/
Wasn't the microchip industry getting it's collective ass handed to it by the transition to the 90nm process just about a year ago? I guess that whatever the problems were they really solved them! It would be exciting to see chip technology take off again, the rate of increase has been painfully slow in the past 2-3 years.
 
stoid said:
Wasn't the microchip industry getting it's collective ass handed to it by the transition to the 90nm process just about a year ago? I guess that whatever the problems were they really solved them! It would be exciting to see chip technology take off again, the rate of increase has been painfully slow in the past 2-3 years.
Click to expand...

Yes and no.

Yes, but IBM was the great loser with the G5. They promised 3GHz, they got 2.2GHz and had to have them overclocked and watercooled at 2.5Ghz while Intel did get not only a speed increase but also DELIVERED those chips to their client while IBM simply couldn't ship any chip for a long time :rolleyes:
 
This is great news, but here's hoping we don't get production issues. I too remember the 90nm fiascos, and they don't seem so long ago. Good move Apple, at least they might hit a processor roadmap instead of swerving (U turn :mad: ) round them in the past. :eek:
 
~Shard~ said:
My decision to hold off buying a new Mac until 2007 is looking better and better.... :cool:
Click to expand...

Or my decision to hold ONTO (Edited because my fingers were faster then my brain today. My original post made it sound like I was going to hold off until 2008! :eek: ) my MacBook until Fall 2008. Mmmm OLED display with a side of quad core goodness, and a dash of dual layer Blue-ray RW drives. :D
 
SiliconAddict said:
Or my decision to hold only my MacBook until Fall 2008. Mmmm OLED display with a side of quad core goodness, and a dash of dual layer Blue-ray RW drives. :D
Click to expand...

Indeed - mmmm, smells like a recipe for sheer power! :D :cool:
 
SiliconAddict said:
Or my decision to hold only my MacBook until Fall 2008. Mmmm OLED display with a side of quad core goodness, and a dash of dual layer Blue-ray RW drives.
Click to expand...
What the heck, I'm never going to buy a MacBook. Imagine what they'll be like very shortly after I die!
 
SiliconAddict said:
Or my decision to hold only my MacBook until Fall 2008. Mmmm OLED display with a side of quad core goodness, and a dash of dual layer Blue-ray RW drives. :D
Click to expand...

I would be surprised if laptops didn't have eight-core procs by then. Weren't they planning those for 2007 desktops already?
 
Yay, good news. I to am happy to stick with my decision in saying no new computer till 2008. (Most likely summer/fall)
 
plastique45 said:
Yes and no.

Yes, but IBM was the great loser with the G5. They promised 3GHz, they got 2.2GHz and had to have them overclocked and watercooled at 2.5Ghz while Intel did get not only a speed increase but also DELIVERED those chips to their client while IBM simply couldn't ship any chip for a long time :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I think you're forgetting that Intel promised then un-promised 4GHz and has been stuck in the low-mid 3's for over a year.
 
jhu said:
i thought leakage increased with a decrease in process?
Click to expand...
all other things equal... Apparently they did something clever to get around that trend. Or their 65nm process was really bad. Or they're lying.
 
seems things are going well for us customers. rapid development of technology brings prices down and performance up. with a new generation of chips almost every 6 month prices for used macs will finally come down to.:)
 
I'd be willing to bet that at least one of the aforementioned parties (IBM or Intel) has production issues and suffers significant delays. Lets hope it's not Intel.
 
plastique45 said:
Yes and no.

Yes, but IBM was the great loser with the G5. They promised 3GHz, they got 2.2GHz and had to have them overclocked and watercooled at 2.5Ghz while Intel did get not only a speed increase but also DELIVERED those chips to their client while IBM simply couldn't ship any chip for a long time :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

We hear this a lot but does anybody have proof, not just conjecture, that the 2.5GHz G5's were overclocked?

Some say the 2.5's were clocked from 2 overs from 2.2. Some will think the 2.7's were further examples of overclocking but can anybody prove it? :rolleyes:
 
psycho bob said:
We hear this a lot but does anybody have proof, not just conjecture, that the 2.5GHz G5's were overclocked?

Some say the 2.5's were clocked from 2 overs from 2.2. Some will think the 2.7's were further examples of overclocking but can anybody prove it? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The whole overclocking talk is silly. If it comes from the manufacturer to run at that speed, it's not overclocked.

arn
 
here here !!!

cgratti said:
Same here, I'll just move along slowly with my iMac G5, until 2007...
Click to expand...

.....and faster chips new computers, and lets not forget OSX-Leopard!



PBG4 15" 1.67ghz/1gram
Nano 4gb white
 
There's always SOMETHING better coming. I'm eyeing Conroe, but already something big to follow Conroe is looming over me :)


Analog Kid said:
I think you're forgetting that Intel promised then un-promised 4GHz and has been stuck in the low-mid 3's for over a year.
Click to expand...
That was Netburst--which Intel is officially abandoning, and which is not relevant to the chip families used in Macs. Netburst was a marketing-driven wrong turn, but the new architectures are far better.
 
chip design

this can only go so far, 90, 65, 45, when we start approaching 20-5 nanometers things are going to get really scary because then you are dealing with elements on the atomic scale, and then they start acting way different than they would in these kind of chip fabs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back