10GHz at under 1V by 2005 - The future of Intel’s manufacturing processes [2000]

Re:10GHz at under 1V by 2005 - The future of Intel’s manufac... by monocasa on Wednesday February 08, 2017 @12:25AM (#13596016)

> Otherwise more research could have gone towards solving heat problem. (ii) Each cycle of CPU was more efficient with ability to execute multiple instructions in a single cycle and with more efficient instruction sets.

Dude, Intel spends something like $80B/yr on R&D. This is closer to hitting fundamental laws of physics barriers.

They killed off their P4 line and developed their mobile line for a reason.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:10GHz at under 1V by 2005 - The future of Intel’s manufac... by kashkhan on Wednesday February 08, 2017 @12:29AM (#13596039)

the $80B a year in R&D is off by an order of magnitude.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/02/05/intel-corporation-...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:10GHz at under 1V by 2005 - The future of Intel’s manufac... by ma2rten on Wednesday February 08, 2017 @12:45AM (#13596107)

Isn't an order of magnitude 10x? According to your link they spent $12.74 billion in 2016.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:10GHz at under 1V by 2005 - The future of Intel’s manufac... by carlob on Wednesday February 08, 2017 @07:59AM (#13597847)

Not necessarily, it could be e if you're using natural logarithms. Anyway: log10(12.74) = 1.10, log10(80) = 1.90. So, it's a little less than a full order of magnitude, but pretty close.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:10GHz at under 1V by 2005 - The future of Intel’s manufac... by slededit on Wednesday February 08, 2017 @12:53AM (#13596136)

Although not normally used for smaller amounts it can go in both directions. ~1/10th is still an accurate if archaic use of the term.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:10GHz at under 1V by 2005 - The future of Intel’s manufac... by knowaveragejoe on Wednesday February 08, 2017 @12:41AM (#13596094)

Indeed, that's more than Intel earned in total revenues in 2016...

[ Parent | on HN ]