Nanometer wars heat up, Toshiba and Intel enter unofficial race

Think the megapixel race is bad? Now we've another to worry about, with both Toshiba and Intel hastily approaching 0.01nm technology in order to make chips faster, more nimble and smaller. According to undisclosed sources at Digitimes, Intel has actually canned production plans for its 45nm Havendale processors, which were originally slated to slip into machines later this year. The cause? It's heading straight to 32nm, reportedly hoping to ship its Clarkdale line in Q1 2010 with entry-level prices ranging from $60 to $190. In related news, Toshiba is joining the likes of IBM, Samsung and Globalfoundries in an effort to dish out chips based on 28nm process technology. Needless to say, the move is being made in an effort to "stay relevant in an area dominated by the likes of Intel Corp and Texas Instruments." Now, if only we could get one of these potent, low-power chips inside of a netbook, we'd be pleased as punch.

Read - Intel cans Havendale in move to 32nm
Read - Toshiba speeds to 28nm

[Jarhead111 @ Jun 22nd 2009 10:18AM]

This only means faster chips with less energy consumption. It's a win-win for consumers.

[Hung @ Jun 22nd 2009 10:23AM]

Win-win for consumers? Not as long as the EU has any say in it!

[jay jay @ Jun 22nd 2009 10:50AM]

@ hung
will you and other people shut up about the EU. unlike the us the eu actually puts consumers before corporations and enforces laws that keeps competition and decreases the chance of monopolies. if the us did this more we wouldn't be getting raped my M$ and cell phone companies charging us exorbitant rates for services.

p.s. im american

[Ignatius @ Jun 22nd 2009 11:03AM]

How are we being raped by Microsoft...?

[Flowah @ Jun 22nd 2009 11:30AM]

BECAUSE MICRO$OFT IS A CORPORATION AND ALL THEY WANT IS MONEY AND THEY SHOVE THEIR WINDOWS PRODUCTS UP MY ASSHOLE.


Sigh.

[SimbaDogg @ Jun 22nd 2009 11:31AM]

@ jayjay...

you're absolutely crazy if you think the EU doesn't make some weird ass decisions concerning businesses. most notably...microsoft. MS...ships its OS, with IE...and they're evil...apple does the same thing w/ OSD and safari, and things are just peachy. Remember when about 10-15 years ago (i really dont remember when it was) MS was in US courts on the anti-trust charges, and the judge in that case actually found out for himself, that it takes no more than 15 min for even an uninformed computer person to switch from IE to something like netscape?

yeah...i to this day have never understood the EU decision about the anti trust stuff. sure apple marketshare is a hell of a lot less than MS, especially in europe...but what is so damn different about osx beign shipped w/ quicktime and safari by default?

[Kizorblade @ Jun 22nd 2009 12:03PM]

@SimbaDogg

I'm pretty sure it was because one can not uninstall IE from the OS because it was tied into it. So if you didn't like it, you're stuck with it anyway.
Safari? Send it to the trash, and delete, no system crash. Not a blip.

[CraigJ @ Jun 22nd 2009 12:11PM]

While I think the EU decision on IE is just asinine, there is a big difference.

1. You can delete safari.app and finder still works. I mean REALLY delete it.
2. Microsoft doesn't make computers. They make an OS and dictate to computer builders what software they can't install. Apple ships a complete product. And for the love of Dog don't get on the Apple has a monopoly on OS X. It is not the same thing as Windows. at all. Microsoft makes an OS for x86/64 computers and licenses that software to OEMs. Apple builds computers and writes their own OS. Would you argue that Porsche has a monopoly on Porsche 3.6L 6 cylinder engines?

All the EU needed to do was tell Microsoft that EU computer builders will be able to install any additional browsers that they want. Problem solved. The whole no IE thing is stupid. Put the FF/Opera/Whatever icon on the desktop.

[Richard @ Jun 22nd 2009 12:18PM]

@SimbaDogg. I find it utterly amazing how people like you are still unable to understand the basic principle of monopoly laws and the reasons why they were created. Does the fact the Microsoft has been found guilty of monopoly abuse in the US, Europe and Asia not make you think they’re doing something wrong? Are you that blinded by your fanaticism that you are unable to see what they’re doing wrong?

Given Microsoft’s record of abuse it’s not surprising that they’ve been fined billions but that they haven’t been fined billions more. For example, it is very clear that the majority of businesses and consumers do not want Windows Vista. If Microsoft was not a monopoly company they would have been forced to continue selling XP in order to avoid losing market share to their competition. However, since they have no effective competition the have been able to pull XP from sale and force an unwanted operating system on the market - something that would not be possible without a monopoly and which is therefore very illegal. Ridiculously there’s currently only one investigation going on into this and that’s in Russia.

They’ve also gotten away with various other abuses. For about ten years ago ICQ was the dominant messaging software until Microsoft decided to abuse their monopoly by bundling Windows Messenger with Windows. To nobody’s surprise Windows Messenger took over as dominant IM software and Microsoft was able to capture another application market thanks to their monopoly abuse.

Why they haven’t been fined for these clear abuses is beyond me.

[Carlton @ Jun 22nd 2009 3:26PM]

@jayjay, et al

Read up on your economics. Start with Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson, or read some of Noble-prize winning works from Friedman. Monopolies can only exist through regulation, such as the EU. No company based on voluntary trade can be accused of being "anti-competitive" -- the only way to be such (and enjoin a monopoly) is through force.

No one is being forced to buy Microsoft products. Most consumers (for better or worse) choose them, that is why most vendors ship with it. Just because Windows is bundled with IE, MSN, et cetera, is not a bad thing -- if it were, people wouldn't BUY Windows. This is why more folks are buying Macs: dissatisfaction with MS (neglecting the trendy hipsters). The system regulates itself.

All the EU and all their so-called "competitive" and "anti-monopoly" trust-busting does is raise the price consumers have to pay for MS products, directly hurting consumers. It additionally says to MS's competitors that they can use the force of government instead of creative improvements and better marketing, thereby decreasing the quality of their software, further hurting consumers.

For the record, I use XP at work, but I much prefer running Linux at home.

[jay jay @ Jun 22nd 2009 3:47PM]

sorry for posting this twice engadget message board SUCKS BALLS!!!! seriously engadget update your messaging system.

at Carlton
are you serious you "the system regulates itself"? were you in a coma for the last eight months with an economic recession due to the lack of banking and trading regulation. and how is the EU making Microsoft products more expensive? when monopolies are allowed to form there services always increase in price because there's no competition example Standard Oil, Intel, etc. in our capitalistic world monopolies are abominations because they can due whatever they want thats why it is important for governments to make sure that they do not abuse the consumer.

lastly whats all this about people CHOOSE to buy Microsoft? they 90% market share all computers other than apples come with them. through apple is becoming popular there are still tons of software that do not wake apple versions of their product. people are forced to use Microsoft for their jobs. also since apple is mainly comprised of high end parts it cost more so if you're a lower class person MS is your only choice (and no you can't say Linux because no OEM bundles Linux with their computer). Microsoft is an monopoly and needs to be regulated properly to ensure that they do not screw over the consumer.

my original post wasn't suppose to be directly targeted about MS i was just saying that the EU isn't evil and what their doing is benefiting consumers. oh and i use ubuntu full time.

[jholl016 @ Jun 22nd 2009 4:03PM]

@ jay jay

If you think that the US economic meltdown was due to a lack of involvement by government, then you really have no idea what you're talking about. Stop listening to the biased media and do some research. You never know what you might find...

Also, with regard to the quality of mac hardware, don't confuse "more expensive" with "higher quality".

[Nick @ Jun 22nd 2009 4:30PM]

@jholl016

Really, it is way worse than you might think. I know most Americans are very ignorant, but here's the hard truth:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=270867650600562607&ei=lc7XSfOKHojiqQLn-LClDA&q=IOUSA

Good job, government of the USA, 9.7 trillion (9,700,000,000,000) US dollars in debt. Good job.

[jay jay @ Jun 22nd 2009 5:26PM]

last response to this article
@jholl016
the us economic problem was caused due to lack of government regulation.
1) a housing bubble was seen coming over a year before it popped and people were telling Allen green span and other government officials but a) no one wanted to interfere with good times and b) the government lack the powers to diffuse the bubble.

2) the banking industry wall street goes to shit because a) our government allowed these banks to become so big that they posed a systemic risk. and b) the allowance of a bigger and bigger role of subprime loans and other "exotic" investment stratergies.

the housing bubble popping lead to a crap load of default loans making banks loose shit loads of cash leading to a massive credit crunch made it next to impossible for businesses to get loans to finance their business. this lead to business owners firing employees to save cash that leads to a lost productivity of industry leading to a lower GDP. when an economy goes to 2 quarters of lose GDP its called a recession. it's you who needs to do research. read a book, watch Charlie rose and bill moyers, and stop watching fox news and maybe YOU will learn something.

[DaSpider @ Jun 22nd 2009 11:48PM]

Too much information on politics! It is damaging my sheep-ness.

[jholl016 @ Jun 23rd 2009 8:04AM]

@ jay jay

who do you think was the driving force behind the subprime mortgage craze? the private banks? um, no. that would be the government-run fannie mae and freddie mac. The government's intrusion into the private market is what led to the "exotic" lending practices, and therefore the artificial inflation and subsequent collapse of the housing market.

That's enough for now, though. I better get back to work... I'm sure the government needs more of my money to bail somebody out.

[neofolklore @ Jun 22nd 2009 10:19AM]

so at this size they can switch to a different kind of metal that wouldn't otherwise be stable at bigger sizes right

[Michael Witt @ Jun 22nd 2009 10:43AM]

No. Unstable bonds are unstable, no matter the amount of material used.

[Wwhat @ Jun 22nd 2009 11:00AM]

Sounds a bit too absolute Michael, I think he's referring to something he saw somewhere, and it makes sense that the size does have effect on materials and changes their effect, perhaps when it's on the edge of usability pushing it into usability, the field strength and voltage and electron push all change as size changes.

[Matt @ Jun 22nd 2009 1:46PM]

Hooray for high-K!!!

[Jarhead111 @ Jun 22nd 2009 10:20AM]

It's a win-win for us.

[MJZimmer88 @ Jun 22nd 2009 10:20AM]

I win? Hurray!

[rells009 @ Jun 22nd 2009 10:23AM]

I'm sorry but which one is Havendale again?

[j0nd4m4n @ Jun 22nd 2009 1:01PM]

I think Engadget is probably referring to the 10nm process, ie 0.01um, not nano.
The Almighty tried and the smallest atom he came up with was 0.025nm.
Maybe intel is trying to come up with a "Your God is not our God commercial", i would certainly love the controversy with that :)

[Patrick @ Jun 22nd 2009 10:29AM]

0.01nm WTF? That's smaller than a hydrogen atom. Is engadget trying to be funny?

[Matt @ Jun 22nd 2009 10:34AM]

Pfft, the laws of physics need not apply.

[Matthias_H @ Jun 22nd 2009 10:42AM]

That's what science would make you believe. But I tell you, 10 years from now, we'll have 100 NAND gates on each electron.

[bioadam @ Jun 22nd 2009 10:41AM]

Endadget is being funny. Here's another one: "AMD just announced 1mm chips." Get it?

[Wwhat @ Jun 22nd 2009 11:05AM]

Well, if you take 2 hydrogen atoms, and then offset them to eachother, you can have that offset be smaller than the atom, so that's something to work with right there, do it with a lattice and you have two sheets offset by 0.01nm, so it IS possible in a way :)

(I know engadget just overdid it a bit by accident)

[KarlW @ Jun 22nd 2009 11:14AM]

Engadget, whilst great for everything else, often falls short when it comes to technical news. I wouldn't be surprised if the 0.01nm thing was a mistake.

The guys who write Engadget like gadgets, but they're not engineers or physicists. They can write about the latest mobiles, but frequently get lost when it comes to low-level semiconductor advances.

That's not necessarily bad - nobody who expects every technical detail to be correct would look for that information on anything owned by AOL.

[crawdad689 @ Jun 22nd 2009 10:30AM]

crazy times we're living in.

[webran61 @ Jun 22nd 2009 10:30AM]

Well, this thread is full of win. Engadget FTW!

[Wwhat @ Jun 22nd 2009 10:34AM]

Let this be a lesson politicians (EU ones too), if you are going to steal money from the people do something useful with it at least :)

[Wwhat @ Jun 22nd 2009 10:51AM]

I meant 'example', anyway I approve on improving chips and making them cheap for everybody is the thing I'm saying.

[IvanP91 @ Jun 22nd 2009 10:34AM]

oh crap, they are having to switch the manufacturing process since the current methods are ineffective in producing 32nm & less

but anyways this is awesome! Less temp, power consumption and more performance

[Wwhat @ Jun 22nd 2009 10:54AM]

Well, smaller means more leakage and closer packed transistors which increases temps too, but overall there does seem to be a sum total of a decrease though so they seem to be keeping ahead.

[alex_guichard @ Jun 22nd 2009 10:40AM]

Considering a single silicon unit cell dimension is 0.543 nm, I don't know that we'll be hitting 0.01 nm anytime soon. I think you guys meant 0.01 MICRON, or 10 nm. That is a node on the roadmap.

[Nitesh @ Jun 22nd 2009 11:27AM]

Thats good news for AMD, if GlobalFoundaries gets 28nm tech.

[mike @ Jun 22nd 2009 11:44AM]

This is incredible technology, and this race is actually pushing us forward in our understanding of processes which will have immense use.
The decreasing size is also actually beneficial.
So, the comparison to the megapixel wars paints it in a rather unkind and mis-informative light.
This is not technology for the sake of marketing hype, even if it means a less capable product ala those megapixel wars.
This is the most impressive building technology on the planet being taken a step further and moving us toward true ubiquitous computing.
Even more profound, perhaps. The manufacturing technologies might open doors for nano-mechanical products which will revolutionize the way humans live.
Sounds over the top, I know.
But so is this capability.
I remember when they were talking about going to 60nm, I think. The size of the field gate at that scale was something like 6 atoms wide.
Now they are talking 28nm and beyond.
These very small sizes are why size does become a factor and different materials are necessary or no longer necessary.


It is truely awesome stuff, in the full sense of the word.

- mike

[Musouka @ Jun 22nd 2009 12:48PM]

So when are we going to start using picometer? Place your estimates here.

I say 2015. 100pm FTW :)

[jhoot @ Jun 22nd 2009 2:00PM]

They are not going to use atoms @0.01nm, they are obviously planing to use the space BETWEEN the atoms for transistors. Moore's law will never be broken!

[hoss_delgado @ Jun 22nd 2009 1:53PM]

go intel, you can do it!

[Raffi @ Jun 22nd 2009 1:58PM]

Looks like CMOS is on its last legs.

[Excelsium @ Jun 22nd 2009 2:00PM]

Yea, some seriously interesting things start to become possible at 22nm..

[jon @ Jun 22nd 2009 1:59PM]

I thought Engadget posted about this back in feb like everyone else, but I guess not.

http://www.dailytech.com/Intel+Replaces+Havendale+and+Auburndale+With+32nm+Die+Shrinks/article14225.htm

[Excelsium @ Jun 22nd 2009 2:05PM]

Suppli: Gear costs to derail Moore's Law in 2014
http://www.eetimes.eu/218000009

I wonder.. :).

[Raffi @ Jun 22nd 2009 2:25PM]

Current roadmap is 11nm process in 2015.

[jay jay @ Jun 22nd 2009 3:45PM]

at Carlton
are you serious you "the system regulates itself"? were you in a coma for the last eight months with an economic recession due to the lack of banking and trading regulation. and how is the EU making Microsoft products more expensive? when monopolies are allowed to form there services always increase in price because there's no competition example Standard Oil, Intel, etc. in our capitalistic world monopolies are abominations because they can due whatever they want thats why it is important for governments to make sure that they do not abuse the consumer.

lastly whats all this about people CHOOSE to buy Microsoft? they 90% market share all computers other than apples come with them. through apple is becoming popular there are still tons of software that do not wake apple versions of their product. people are forced to use Microsoft for their jobs. also since apple is mainly comprised of high end parts it cost more so if you're a lower class person MS is your only choice (and no you can't say Linux because no OEM bundles Linux with their computer). Microsoft is an monopoly and needs to be regulated properly to ensure that they do not screw over the consumer.

my original post wasn't suppose to be directly targeted about MS i was just saying that the EU isn't evil and what their doing is benefiting consumers. oh and i use ubuntu full time.

[jason @ Jun 22nd 2009 6:47PM]

The only race where people brag they went the shortest distance.

[loosely_coupled @ Jun 22nd 2009 9:09PM]

The Intel "news" is not news. It has been known for months that Intel was killing off the 45nm dual-core Nehalems in favor of pushing up the 32nm versions.