4 ms·

Some interesting numbers: In 1971, the 4004 microprocessor had 2300 transistors fabricated with a 10um process. If the 4004 was fabricated with the same 14nm

by femto 12y ago

Some interesting numbers: In 1971, the 4004 microprocessor had 2300 transistors fabricated with a 10um process. If the 4004 was fabricated with the same 14nm process as the Skylake, over two hundred 4004s would fit in the area that a single transistor occupied in the original 4004. "Breakeven" occurred with the 68000: In 1979, the 68000 microprocessor had 68000 transistors fabricated with a 3.5um process. If the 68000 was fabricated with the same 14nm process as the Skylake, an entire 68000 would fit in the area that a single transistor occupied in the original 68000. Today's transistors are really small compared to what they used to be! The mind boggles at how many simple processor cores could be crammed into a current die. The numbers came from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count

swalsh 12y ago
What blows my mind is that Intel continues to do it with what seems like really only one real competitor.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  ARM chip makers are competitors to Intel now. Whether you believe it or not, is less important. Intel, however, does believe it. Their entire chip strategy over the past few years has been a response to ARM - with each new generation they barely increase the performance of mainstream chips or even drop it, like they did with Core-M, as they try to lower their power consumption, to put them closer to ARM's range. I'm not talking about IPC here, but about the overall performance of the mainstream chips they're pushing in the market. First it was -M chips in laptops (30W-level performance), then it was -U chips (15W-level performance), and now it's -Y chips (5W - or so they say - level performance). Yes, a good chunk of that difference is from moving to new nodes and optimization, but not all of it. Another big part comes from lowering the performance and/or throttling their chips a lot more aggressively than before in order to achieve that drastic drop in power consumption. They don't care what AMD is doing these days, but they do care what ARM chip makers are doing. They even bought a 4G modem company, so they can integrate modems into chips the way Qualcomm does it. Speaking of Qualcomm, I believe it has just announced it's going into server chips now. Intel feels so threatened by ARM now, that it's losing $1 billion per quarter, to essentially give away its Atom chips for free to no-name tablet makers, or less important OEMs (who are the only ones desperate enough to take Intel's deal, because others know that as soon as Intel becomes a big player, they'll charge a much higher rate even than other ARM competition - Intel likes big profits on its chips and it's the only way for them to sustain the company). They even went into the business of IP licensing for crying out loud, just like ARM (they're licensing Atom IP to Rockchip and Spreadtrum). Intel has essentially admitted that it can't be competitive building its own mobile chips. They have to license the IP to others so other companies can build them - on TSMC's foundry, on an old process node, even by current ARM standards.
  - gsnedders 12y ago
    Intel's big problem is the fact that they invest so heavily in fabs (which is how they're basically constantly a process ahead of everyone else!) that their costs are so much higher than most other manufacturers — and that's why they charge so much more for their chips than most of the generic ARM SoCs. Yes, some of it is profit margin, but they've been pushing the development so much that much of it is just recouping their massive investments that give them their competitive advantage.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- signa11 12y ago
  > ... do it with what seems like really only one real competitor i presume you mean the "laws-of-nature" here :)
- raverbashing 12y ago
  Well, Intel threw their monopolistic weight against AMD, which cost them a 2Bi fine... But yeah, they're evolving. However, I think it's a good 10 years now since computing speed is not relevant except in niche applications. What we have today is good enough for watching Netflix and seeing cat pictures, doing your school assignments, your work docs and spreadsheets, etc
  - DigitalJack 12y ago
    I've been hearing it this sentiment for a decade. Until I don't have to wait for my computer to do something, it's not fast enough.
    - tormeh 12y ago
      I almost only wait for the network. The only time I truly wait for the computer is Civilization AI turns, Scala compilation and a reinforcement learning algorithm I made once that had severe performance "potential".
- Narishma 12y ago
  I suppose you mean ARM by the competitor. AMD certainly hasn't been a competitor for the past decade or so.
- Kurtz79 12y ago
  Regardless of the difficulty of designing faster CPUs (that is to say, not by just increasing the clock, which has not been an option for a while), for a company that also manufactures the actual silicon, the cost associated to the fabrication processes is incredibly high, and few potential competitors can assume that without an established base. It's no wonder that their only real "competitor" is fabless.
mpweiher 12y ago
http://blog.metaobject.com/2007/09/or-transistor.html http://blog.metaobject.com/2007/09/or-transistor.html

by femto 12y ago

swalsh 12y ago

What blows my mind is that Intel continues to do it with what seems like really only one real competitor.

higherpurpose 12y ago
ARM chip makers are competitors to Intel now. Whether you believe it or not, is less important. Intel, however, does believe it. Their entire chip strategy over the past few years has been a response to ARM - with each new generation they barely increase the performance of mainstream chips or even drop it, like they did with Core-M, as they try to lower their power consumption, to put them closer to ARM's range. I'm not talking about IPC here, but about the overall performance of the mainstream chips they're pushing in the market. First it was -M chips in laptops (30W-level performance), then it was -U chips (15W-level performance), and now it's -Y chips (5W - or so they say - level performance). Yes, a good chunk of that difference is from moving to new nodes and optimization, but not all of it. Another big part comes from lowering the performance and/or throttling their chips a lot more aggressively than before in order to achieve that drastic drop in power consumption. They don't care what AMD is doing these days, but they do care what ARM chip makers are doing. They even bought a 4G modem company, so they can integrate modems into chips the way Qualcomm does it. Speaking of Qualcomm, I believe it has just announced it's going into server chips now. Intel feels so threatened by ARM now, that it's losing $1 billion per quarter, to essentially give away its Atom chips for free to no-name tablet makers, or less important OEMs (who are the only ones desperate enough to take Intel's deal, because others know that as soon as Intel becomes a big player, they'll charge a much higher rate even than other ARM competition - Intel likes big profits on its chips and it's the only way for them to sustain the company). They even went into the business of IP licensing for crying out loud, just like ARM (they're licensing Atom IP to Rockchip and Spreadtrum). Intel has essentially admitted that it can't be competitive building its own mobile chips. They have to license the IP to others so other companies can build them - on TSMC's foundry, on an old process node, even by current ARM standards.
- gsnedders 12y ago
  Intel's big problem is the fact that they invest so heavily in fabs (which is how they're basically constantly a process ahead of everyone else!) that their costs are so much higher than most other manufacturers — and that's why they charge so much more for their chips than most of the generic ARM SoCs. Yes, some of it is profit margin, but they've been pushing the development so much that much of it is just recouping their massive investments that give them their competitive advantage.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
signa11 12y ago
> ... do it with what seems like really only one real competitor i presume you mean the "laws-of-nature" here :)
raverbashing 12y ago
Well, Intel threw their monopolistic weight against AMD, which cost them a 2Bi fine... But yeah, they're evolving. However, I think it's a good 10 years now since computing speed is not relevant except in niche applications. What we have today is good enough for watching Netflix and seeing cat pictures, doing your school assignments, your work docs and spreadsheets, etc
- DigitalJack 12y ago
  I've been hearing it this sentiment for a decade. Until I don't have to wait for my computer to do something, it's not fast enough.
  - tormeh 12y ago
    I almost only wait for the network. The only time I truly wait for the computer is Civilization AI turns, Scala compilation and a reinforcement learning algorithm I made once that had severe performance "potential".
Narishma 12y ago
I suppose you mean ARM by the competitor. AMD certainly hasn't been a competitor for the past decade or so.
Kurtz79 12y ago
Regardless of the difficulty of designing faster CPUs (that is to say, not by just increasing the clock, which has not been an option for a while), for a company that also manufactures the actual silicon, the cost associated to the fabrication processes is incredibly high, and few potential competitors can assume that without an established base. It's no wonder that their only real "competitor" is fabless.

mpweiher 12y ago

http://blog.metaobject.com/2007/09/or-transistor.html http://blog.metaobject.com/2007/09/or-transistor.html