Intel's 45nm Chip due in 2007

MacBytes

macrumors bot
Original poster
Jul 5, 2003
15,835
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
 

stoid

macrumors 601
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.
 

plastique45

macrumors regular
Jan 10, 2005
106
0
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.
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:
 

24C

macrumors 6502a
Nov 9, 2004
519
0
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:
 

SiliconAddict

macrumors 603
Jun 19, 2003
5,889
0
Chicago, IL
~Shard~ said:
My decision to hold off buying a new Mac until 2007 is looking better and better.... :cool:
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
 

~Shard~

macrumors P6
Jun 4, 2003
18,388
42
1123.6536.5321
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
Indeed - mmmm, smells like a recipe for sheer power! :D :cool:
 

Thomas Harte

macrumors 6502
Nov 30, 2005
396
2
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.
What the heck, I'm never going to buy a MacBook. Imagine what they'll be like very shortly after I die!
 

kindrom

macrumors newbie
Jan 23, 2006
2
0
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
I would be surprised if laptops didn't have eight-core procs by then. Weren't they planning those for 2007 desktops already?
 

itsbetteronamac

macrumors regular
Apr 27, 2003
171
0
Yay, good news. I to am happy to stick with my decision in saying no new computer till 2008. (Most likely summer/fall)
 

Analog Kid

macrumors 601
Mar 4, 2003
4,777
2,797
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:
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.
 

Analog Kid

macrumors 601
Mar 4, 2003
4,777
2,797
jhu said:
i thought leakage increased with a decrease in process?
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.
 

andiwm2003

macrumors 601
Mar 29, 2004
4,325
379
Boston, MA
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.:)
 

Chaszmyr

macrumors 601
Aug 9, 2002
4,265
76
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.
 

psycho bob

macrumors 6502a
Oct 25, 2003
638
6
Leeds, England
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:
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:
 

arn

macrumors god
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
14,109
1,455
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:
The whole overclocking talk is silly. If it comes from the manufacturer to run at that speed, it's not overclocked.

arn
 

capone2

macrumors regular
Mar 29, 2005
221
0
chelsea-nyc
here here !!!

cgratti said:
Same here, I'll just move along slowly with my iMac G5, until 2007...
.....and faster chips new computers, and lets not forget OSX-Leopard!



PBG4 15" 1.67ghz/1gram
Nano 4gb white
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
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.
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.
 

TheMasin9

macrumors 6502a
Dec 22, 2004
585
0
Huber Heights, OH
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.