Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.freeware > #253270

Re: AMD vs. Intel

From GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com>
Newsgroups alt.comp.freeware, alt.comp.os.windows-10, alt.hacker, alt.privacy.anon-server, comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject Re: AMD vs. Intel
Date 2016-01-24 10:36 -0700
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <n831tg$796$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (14 earlier) <n7rm00$i8$1@dont-email.me> <n7s8b2$lrs$1@dont-email.me> <n7tgpn$ljv$1@dont-email.me> <n7ua94$t4$1@dont-email.me> <n80fab$qrn$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 5 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 01/23/16 11:06, Paul wrote:
> GreyCloud wrote:
>
>> They should. The markets, at least to me, are getting rather boring.
>> If I was the chairman of the board at IBM, I'd have fired the idiot
>> that didn't try to cut the power consumption on the PowerPC line. That
>> would've kept IBM in contention with Intel and kept their profits up,
>> which as I understand it now is falling. Their single core G5 at the
>> time did pretty good as one core, and I could only imagine what an 8
>> core G5 with low power consumption could've done for the market.
>
> Low power consumption is a side effect of the development process.
>
> Even Intel, owning its own fab and having teams capable
> of redefining transistor stacks multiple times over the years,
> they still can't hit the power target they want, to compete with ARM.
> They can only get "close". (Cheating with scenario design power
> versus TDP, throttling when the chip gets hot and so on.)
>
> Of course they "try to cut the power consumption",
> every day when they come into work. But the work is
> "hard". You can't wave a magic wand, and change your
> position in the industry.
>
> The architecture you select, defines "the gorilla you
> drag around on your back". And as good as Intel is,
> they'd can't squeeze enough advantage out of their fab,
> to compensate for "X86/X64".
>
> The fabs use equipment made by other companies. You
> need lithography equipment. No silicon company tries
> to make all the equipment in their production facility.
> They need "nice machines" fully automated, ready for
> unattended operation. All they can make in their own
> labs, is spaghettio machines with wires and cables all
> over the place, vacuum pumps, glass christmas trees,
> stuff all over the place, and a team of PhDs adjusting
> the knobs every day to keep it running. External companies
> make the real production equipment. And the industry works
> together to set the next process node, so you can actually
> build and purchase the items you need to build a fab.

I know, I live down the street from a company that was bought out for 
the expertise that the locals had brought to the company.
It is a business unto itself and is very successful.

>
> http://www.ibtimes.com/ibm-major-breakthrough-computer-chips-featuring-tiny-7-nanometer-transistors-2002277
>
>
> "IBM said Thursday said it had successfully created
> computer chips with microscopic 7-nanometer transistors,
> a major breakthrough for the tech industry that should
> allow hardware manufacturers to continue making faster
> computers and smartphones over the next few years.
>
> By creating tiny transistors of only 7 nm (1 nm equals
> 1 billionth of a meter) IBM is able to fit more transistors
> onto its chips than possible with the current 22-nm and 14-nm
> transistor chips.
>
> "blah blah blah scaling to 7 nm and beyond," said Arvind Krishna,
> senior vice president and director of IBM Research, in a statement.
> "That’s why IBM has remained committed to an aggressive basic
> research agenda that continually pushes the limits of semiconductor
> technology."
>
> For decades, transistors have gotten smaller, allowing for more
> powerful computer chips to be created. This is known as Moore's Law,
> but blah blah blah for at least a few more years.
>
> To create the 7 nm transistors, IBM teamed up with other chipmakers,
> including Samsung, and used a silicon-germanium mixture instead
> of just silicon. It also had to develop new manufacturing processes
> to achieve working transistors.
>
> For IBM, the next challenge will be to figure out <----
> a way to create these chips at a mass scale so
> they can be commercially viable.
> "

It always boils down to production problems.  Once those are solved, 
they may be able to lift their profits off the deck, as long as someone 
else doesn't beat them to the punch.

>
> So the last paragraph is key. Yes, they made a breakthrough.
> These don't happen every day. And someone needs to make
> the equipment, refine the process, so that they can
> build even a single football field sized fab to do it.
>
> Even with the example photo of a test chip (perhaps done
> with an E-beam), the rest of the industry will work to
> make the production method cheap enough to actually
> build a fab with. So if the chairman of IBM said
> "make me a low power PowerPC", the fab guy would
> say "not until we have production facilities
> to do it". Making single wafers in your basement
> with the PhDs, is not a production facility.
>

That is true, but IBM should have told Apple what they were asking for.
Intel beat IBM to the punch and most likely was the straw that broke the 
camels back.

> So IBM solved the problem of what to make substrates
> or wafers out of. But how the transistors get transferred
> to masks, for all those process steps that take 12 weeks
> to complete, others are still working on this. It appears
> they might still be using optical techniques in the
> ultraviolet.
>
> http://semiengineering.com/eda-races-to-7nm-despite-litho-uncertainties/
>
> See, fun stuff. Still using optical methods
> after all these years.

Isn't X-ray lithography a bit better?

>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_patterning
>
> IBM can use much more expensive (lab prototype)
> methods, like an E-beam writer, to make their test
> chip. But whatever method they used, might be
> too slow or too expensive for production purposes.
>
> A lot of teamwork goes into this stuff. Even though
> the companies compete, they can only keep the lithography
> machine company in business, if he makes the same
> equipment for everybody.

Grant you, it is a very big interdependent industry.

>
> Paul

Back to alt.comp.freeware | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2016-01-19 01:50 +0100
  Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 16:17 +0800
  Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2016-01-19 16:04 +0700
    Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 17:11 +0800
      Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2016-01-19 06:27 -0500
        Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 20:55 +0800
      Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2016-01-19 22:55 +0100
        Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-19 15:10 -0700
          Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2016-01-20 03:30 +0100
            Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-20 09:32 -0500
              Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-20 15:05 -0500
                Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-20 15:57 -0500
                Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads G. Morgan <sealteam6@osama-is-dead.net> - 2016-01-31 00:28 -0600
                Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2016-01-31 02:24 -0500
                Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Jeremy Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> - 2016-01-20 23:47 +0100
                AMD vs. Intel vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-01-20 23:21 +0000
                Re: AMD vs. Intel chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 06:48 -0600
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-21 19:30 +0100
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-21 14:51 -0500
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-01-21 21:18 +0100
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-21 17:30 -0500
                Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-21 20:42 -0700
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-22 07:15 +0100
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Jeremy Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> - 2016-01-22 08:48 +0100
                Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-22 15:24 -0700
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-22 23:34 +0100
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2016-01-23 01:58 +0100
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2016-01-23 01:47 +0000
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-23 11:24 +0100
                Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-23 10:23 -0700
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-23 18:37 +0100
                Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-24 10:23 -0700
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-24 23:23 +0100
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-25 05:04 +0100
                Re: AMD vs. Intel chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-25 07:49 -0600
                Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-25 11:06 -0700
                Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-25 11:05 -0700
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2016-01-26 08:02 +0000
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2016-01-24 19:06 +0100
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-24 16:14 -0500
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-24 15:38 +0100
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-24 15:59 +0100
                Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-24 10:25 -0700
                Re: AMD vs. Intel JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-01-25 08:11 -0600
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-25 10:55 -0500
                Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-25 11:07 -0700
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-26 01:58 +0100
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-01-26 02:05 +0100
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-26 11:24 +0100
                Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-27 12:17 -0700
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2016-01-27 21:58 +0000
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Jeremy Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> - 2016-01-26 19:55 +0100
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Jeremy Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> - 2016-01-23 06:20 +0100
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-22 10:13 -0500
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2016-01-22 11:57 -0500
                Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-22 15:27 -0700
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-23 09:37 -0500
                Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-23 10:28 -0700
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2016-01-24 06:21 +0100
                Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-24 10:29 -0700
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2016-01-23 13:06 -0500
                Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-24 10:36 -0700
                Re: AMD vs. Intel chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-22 06:59 -0600
                Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-22 15:30 -0700
                Re: AMD vs. Intel chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-22 07:25 -0600
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Flasherly <Flasherly@live.com> - 2016-01-21 15:10 -0500
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-01-21 21:23 +0100
                Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-21 17:40 -0500
                Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-21 10:40 -0500
                Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-01-21 12:16 -0500
                Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 11:26 -0600
                Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 11:31 -0600
                Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-21 23:42 +0100
                Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-21 13:08 -0500
                Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2016-01-21 22:31 +0100
              Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2016-01-20 20:29 +0000
            Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-20 11:53 -0700
              Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2016-01-20 20:59 +0000
                Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-20 14:29 -0700
                Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2016-01-21 05:44 +0000
                Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-21 14:17 -0700
                Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2016-01-22 04:31 +0100
                Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-21 20:44 -0700
                Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-22 08:35 +0100
                Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2016-01-23 06:13 +0100
                Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-23 10:03 +0100
                Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2016-01-23 15:39 +0100
                Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Jeremy Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> - 2016-01-24 05:06 +0100
                Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2016-01-24 10:39 +0100
                Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2016-01-25 00:22 +0100
    Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2016-01-19 05:09 -0500
      Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-30 08:07 +0000
    Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2016-01-19 22:16 +0100
      Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex  Workloads Euclides Zoto <euclides_zoto@optimum.net> - 2016-01-18 18:20 -0800
    Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-30 08:07 +0000
      Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2016-01-30 10:03 +0100

csiph-web