Intel tech, can IBM beat it?

[JR Alberda]

Source: Slashdot

Ridgelift writes "In keeping with Moore's Law, Intel will being mass-producing chips using 65-nanometer process technology in 2005, according to a ZDNet article (additional coverage at EE Times and The Inquirer). Intel recently produced a Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) cell at 0.57 square microns, in comparison to 90-nanometer process measuring 1 square micron. "You can get a 40 to 50 percent increase in clock speed with no further improvements" says Intel director Mark Bohr."

I sure hope that MS has a trick up thier sleeve with IBM for the XB2 chip. Intel is looking really good for 2005.

[OC Noob]

They sure as heck can't beat then at the x86 architecture (SP?), but they can at non-x86 chips. Its going to based off their... is it Power PC chips... something like that and they have the advantage of streamlining it for gfx and the xbox which intel really wasn't doing. IBM could, very seriously, make a 500 mhz chip that blows an intel 4 ghz chip off the map at doing Xbox 2 apps if the 4 ghz chip is simply another PC CPU.

x86 ain't all that and I will be glad to see it go, but will miss the easy portability from PC to Xbox and visa versa.

[DrunkenSmurf]

Intel owns the x86 32 bit market while IBM has been in the 64 bit market for a while.

[Peepers]

Why don't we measure processor speed with floating point operations per second? Clock speed is only one of several components of processor speed.

[Caesar SYN]

Through Put is what matters not clock speed, it is a component to increase or improve through put no? I care less about processor speed I can about overall performance and well Intel has never "made" anything but improved upon someone elses technology or device x86..