Embedded Systems Conference
Breaking News
Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
abraxalito
User Rank
Author
re: Intel vindicated by TSMC/ARM announcement
abraxalito   7/28/2012 1:29:21 PM
NO RATINGS
I have a question. Intel is the undisputed foundry leader - no doubt about that. So why would the world leader in foundry process need 'validation' for what it said from its followers?

cdhmanning
User Rank
Author
re: Intel vindicated by TSMC/ARM announcement
cdhmanning   7/27/2012 3:35:00 AM
NO RATINGS
I think "articles" like this are a sign of the times. Looks like EETimes is no longer really editing and is just becoming a low-quality channel for press releases and FUD-talk. The purpose of having an editorial is to keep the quality and screen out this sort of junk. Without that you're just cashing in a once-valuable brand. When the quality goes down, so will the advertising revenue. Oh well, once ESD stopped printing this was bound to happen...

Hillol
User Rank
Author
re: Intel vindicated by TSMC/ARM announcement
Hillol   7/26/2012 2:53:02 PM
NO RATINGS
Yes system is very key. In M2M or wireless, system performance is required. Process node can not solve all issues. HW+SW+Acceptance - that is market.

KB3001
User Rank
Author
re: Intel vindicated by TSMC/ARM announcement
KB3001   7/25/2012 1:45:16 AM
NO RATINGS
Read what I said above. On its own transistor/process technology is not enough these days. ARM and Co. have low power architectures, more efficient software tools, and a much larger ecosystem, which can more than compensate for a loss of 30% in power or speed performance at the transistor level (if proven). Of course, they will always seek to catch up with the latest and best transistor/process technology but that's not all what they are about. I repeat, system performance is not dictated by transistor/process performance alone. Intel want you to think that way because they are an IDM who want you locked into their way of doing things.

resistion
User Rank
Author
re: Intel vindicated by TSMC/ARM announcement
resistion   7/25/2012 1:20:46 AM
NO RATINGS
Intel's fins are like varying shape triangles (as pointed out in earlier articles). The leakage variation impact is clearer here: http://www.electronicsweekly.com/blogs/david-manners-semiconductor-blog/2012/06/intels-finfets-are-complicated.html

resistion
User Rank
Author
re: Intel vindicated by TSMC/ARM announcement
resistion   7/25/2012 1:08:40 AM
NO RATINGS
About TSMC or foundries in general, they will never adopt new technologies unless it is clear customers will go for it. That is why they are not so "self-driven" as Intel or Samsung might be. That is why you need ARM or Qualcomm to first sign up. Even then, there is general reluctance. What if it is just one customer? Should other customers benefit so easily without putting in so much develop time? Etc.

resistion
User Rank
Author
re: Intel vindicated by TSMC/ARM announcement
resistion   7/25/2012 1:03:52 AM
NO RATINGS
The Ivy Bridge advantage over Sandy Bridge is not 100% clear: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-overclocking-core-i7-3770k,3198-5.html http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-overclocking-core-i7-3770k,3198-3.html

vdara
User Rank
Author
re: Intel vindicated by TSMC/ARM announcement
vdara   7/25/2012 12:50:18 AM
NO RATINGS
So, why do ARM and TSMC bother to announce that they have FinFET in the roadmap? Since nobody cares it anyway.

KB3001
User Rank
Author
re: Intel vindicated by TSMC/ARM announcement
KB3001   7/24/2012 8:57:50 PM
NO RATINGS
Yeah, but what about the overall system performance, power consumption, battery life, software and hardware eco-system? Neaaahh, who cares, it's FinFET technology after all :-)

askubel
User Rank
Author
re: Intel vindicated by TSMC/ARM announcement
askubel   7/24/2012 7:09:40 PM
NO RATINGS
You mean benefits like 30% less power consumption on average vs 32nm? I for one, applaud Intel for marketing the technology behind these benefits rather than just telling consumers "It's faster, so buy it"

Page 1 / 2   >   >>


Radio
LATEST ARCHIVED BROADCAST
As data rates begin to move beyond 25 Gbps channels, new problems arise. Getting to 50 Gbps channels might not be possible with the traditional NRZ (2-level) signaling. PAM4 lets data rates double with only a small increase in channel bandwidth by sending two bits per symbol. But, it brings new measurement and analysis problems. Signal integrity sage Ransom Stephens will explain how PAM4 differs from NRZ and what to expect in design, measurement, and signal analysis.

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Most Recent Comments
andybe
 
Bruzzer
 
Bruzzer
 
CB_EE
 
uv-linkedin
 
CB_EE
 
CB_EE
 
uv-linkedin
 
CB_EE
Like Us on Facebook
Special Video Section
The LTC®6363 is a low power, low noise, fully differential ...
Vincent Ching, applications engineer at Avago Technologies, ...
The LT®6375 is a unity-gain difference amplifier which ...
The LTC®4015 is a complete synchronous buck controller/ ...
10:35
The LTC®2983 measures a wide variety of temperature sensors ...
The LTC®3886 is a dual PolyPhase DC/DC synchronous ...
The LTC®2348-18 is an 18-bit, low noise 8-channel ...
The LT®3042 is a high performance low dropout linear ...
Chwan-Jye Foo (C.J Foo), product marketing manager for ...
The LT®3752/LT3752-1 are current mode PWM controllers ...
LED lighting is an important feature in today’s and future ...
Active balancing of series connected battery stacks exists ...
After a four-year absence, Infineon returns to Mobile World ...
A laptop’s 65-watt adapter can be made 6 times smaller and ...
An industry network should have device and data security at ...
The LTC2975 is a four-channel PMBus Power System Manager ...
In this video, a new high speed CMOS output comparator ...
The LT8640 is a 42V, 5A synchronous step-down regulator ...
The LTC2000 high-speed DAC has low noise and excellent ...
How do you protect the load and ensure output continues to ...