Intel shows 22nm SRAM chip

So what dose this mean in terms of power/performance speed and power/heat?

I'm gonna guess a 3% real increase in performance with a 300% increase in price

Originally posted by Lothros:

---

I'm gonna guess a 3% real increase in performance with a 300% increase in price

---

So, computers of the future will contain "near absolute Zero" cooling devices to achieve these superconducting speeds?

Originally posted by ThePastor:

---

So, computers of the future will contain "near absolute Zero" cooling devices to achieve these superconducting speeds?

---

They got these made sooner than I expected. Who knows, we might see these in laptops/desktops next year. Nice work Intel.

With the numbers keep shrinking, what happens when they get very low, like 4nm or 2nm? Maybe they'll stretch it out with a decimal system "0.92nm chips"! Whatever happens, I just hope we soon get our dual-core atoms for netbooks and tablets.

Originally posted by rmarier83:

---

With the numbers keep shrinking, what happens when they get very low, like 4nm or 2nm? Maybe they'll stretch it out with a decimal system "0.92nm chips"! Whatever happens, I just hope we soon get our dual-core atoms for netbooks and tablets.

---

Originally posted by rmarier83:

---

With the numbers keep shrinking, what happens when they get very low, like 4nm or 2nm? Maybe they'll stretch it out with a decimal system "0.92nm chips"! Whatever happens, I just hope we soon get our dual-core atoms for netbooks and tablets.

---

well we have near 5GHz GDDR5 in GPUs, and near 3GHz GDDR3.

adn what they do with turbo in the LGA 11156 i5/i7s is good. when a program only uses 1/2 core, the others are shut down and it increaces the multi for the 2 used cores which leaves them with a higher clock speed.

Honestly, I don't know what expert could still be surprised by this. People have been decrying Moore's law for years. And it continues to prove itself. Just because YOU can't fathom how they'd do it, doesn't mean others can't. It's a shortsighted assumption.

That said, it's nice to see progress... Even if Intel is practically making out with the press "It's our job to continue that pace." Could you kiss any more @ss?

Obviously, we'll see their competitor AMD make similar jumps in a relatively close timeframe, because that's just how competition has always worked.

I do think that it's important for microprocessor manufacturers to continue making this kind of progress; because it allows us to move forward. We seem to have hit a kind of wall with raw core speed, just around the 3-4Ghz mark. Sure, we could very slowly get better, but going in the direction of multi-threaded program design, and multi-core operations is a much more sensible technology path for us. Just because the individual cores aren't necessarily getting faster (In some cases they're slower), doesn't mean this isn't a step forward.

More cores means the ability to do more at once, just because a single core doesn't handle a single operation as fast as it might have before doesn't mean that being able to get more cores, more transistors into the same space won't allow for significant performance boosts.

The interesting thing right now is that a lot of users and consumers are crying out "That's great, but it doesn't do me any good, I don't need this technology." A lot of folks feel like progressively faster computing is moving too slow, and it's simply not true. In fact, it's nearly the opposite. Manufacturers are creating processors that are capable of more than software engineers know what to do with just yet. It's an unusual case, but I think it's important to remember that the hardware is still moving forward at a consistent rate, we just don't have software that fully utilizes the latest progressions. We will in the coming years, and these multi-core CPU's will suddenly become much more useful for everyone.

Originally posted by handsom:

---

Honestly, I don't know what expert could still be surprised by this. People have been decrying Moore's law for years. And it continues to prove itself. Just because YOU can't fathom how they'd do it, doesn't mean others can't. It's a shortsighted assumption.

That said, it's nice to see progress... Even if Intel is practically making out with the press "It's our job to continue that pace." Could you kiss any more @ss?

Obviously, we'll see their competitor AMD make similar jumps in a relatively close timeframe, because that's just how competition has always worked.

I do think that it's important for microprocessor manufacturers to continue making this kind of progress; because it allows us to move forward. We seem to have hit a kind of wall with raw core speed, just around the 3-4Ghz mark. Sure, we could very slowly get better, but going in the direction of multi-threaded program design, and multi-core operations is a much more sensible technology path for us. Just because the individual cores aren't necessarily getting faster (In some cases they're slower), doesn't mean this isn't a step forward.

More cores means the ability to do more at once, just because a single core doesn't handle a single operation as fast as it might have before doesn't mean that being able to get more cores, more transistors into the same space won't allow for significant performance boosts.

The interesting thing right now is that a lot of users and consumers are crying out "That's great, but it doesn't do me any good, I don't need this technology." A lot of folks feel like progressively faster computing is moving too slow, and it's simply not true. In fact, it's nearly the opposite. Manufacturers are creating processors that are capable of more than software engineers know what to do with just yet. It's an unusual case, but I think it's important to remember that the hardware is still moving forward at a consistent rate, we just don't have software that fully utilizes the latest progressions. We will in the coming years, and these multi-core CPU's will suddenly become much more useful for everyone.

---

ZippDSM, I couldn't agree with you more as far as real world results are concerned. For me, it's just a matter of remembering that the hardware folks are there, they're ready, and they're getting the equipment out in a [mostly] cost and time effective manner. A lot of consumers don't fully realize that what's holding this hardware back isn't the hardware itself, it's how we [fail to] utilize it.