Skip to comments.Intel Spills Details on 3D Transistor Port to Smartphone Chips
Posted on 12/12/2012 9:51:18 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Processors can be up to 65 percent faster thanks to novel new design
Intel Corp. (INTC) has a long way to go to be a strong competitor to the coalition of ARM Holdings Plc (LON:ARM) licensees who today dominate the smartphone and tablet industries. The company, long the dominant force in the personal computer CPU market, is working diligently to catch up. Its first smartphone effort -- Medfield was surprisingly capable, although not giving Intel a clear win over rival ARM-based offerings.
I. Tri-Gate is Crucial to Intel's Mobile Ambition
But Intel has a trick up its sleeve for the next round -- 22 nanometer tri-gate transistors. The unique 3D transistor technology employs a special fin-shaped structure to eliminate leakage at the gate, a key source of inefficiency and inaccuracy, as transistors get smaller.
Kaizad Mistry, a vice president in Intel's manufacturing group, comments to The Wall Street Journal, "There has been some press about how TriGate may not be suited for SoCs. I find that frankly quite baffling."
Intel's tri-gate transistors will hit the mobile market next year.
Intel first revealed its tri-gate transistors with Ivy Bridge, its latest personal computer CPU line, which launched earlier this year. Ivy Bridge is currently the leader in single-threaded performance in that market.
For Intel, a company who invests vast sums in process improvement, die shrinks allow the company to yield continuous improvement, while novel technologies like tri-gate allow the company to offer a little something extra. In the personal computer CPU market where Intel has long dominated, such extras are less game changing, but in the mobile market where it's struggled they're critical.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailytech.com ...
MMmm. Sell INTC? OR Hold?
I want to go to Chick-fil-A and order some waffle fries.
Intel, one of the most Corrupt companies in existence. They reverse engineer most of there “breakthroughs” And then act like they are a brilliant company. They violate other companies patents then act like they are the ones who are injured.
Can you back that up? Please cite your source. Thanks