Opteron versus Xeon

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Dann Corbit, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
CRoberson
Posts: 2037
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:31 am
Location: North Carolina, USA
Contact:

Re: Opteron versus Xeon

Post by CRoberson » Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:59 pm

It would not be a nanoprocessor. A 16 nanometer "process"
(not processor) doesn't mean the cpu is 16 nanometers in size.

Think about it; you can easily see the cpu in your computer without
a microscope.

User avatar
Dan Honeycutt
Posts: 5258
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 3:31 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Opteron versus Xeon

Post by Dan Honeycutt » Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:21 pm

CRoberson wrote:It would not be a nanoprocessor. A 16 nanometer "process"
(not processor) doesn't mean the cpu is 16 nanometers in size.

Think about it; you can easily see the cpu in your computer without
a microscope.
So you would only need a magnifying glass to see a microprocessor.

Best
Dan H.

User avatar
smirobth
Posts: 2307
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:41 pm
Location: Brownsville Texas USA

Re: Opteron versus Xeon

Post by smirobth » Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:42 pm

Dan Honeycutt wrote:
CRoberson wrote:It would not be a nanoprocessor. A 16 nanometer "process"
(not processor) doesn't mean the cpu is 16 nanometers in size.

Think about it; you can easily see the cpu in your computer without
a microscope.
So you would only need a magnifying glass to see a microprocessor.

Best
Dan H.
Not just a magnifying glass .... you need a microscope to see a microprocessor. :lol:
- Robin Smith

Terry McCracken

Re: Opteron versus Xeon

Post by Terry McCracken » Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:44 pm

CRoberson wrote:It would not be a nanoprocessor. A 16 nanometer "process"
(not processor) doesn't mean the cpu is 16 nanometers in size.

Think about it; you can easily see the cpu in your computer without
a microscope.
You didn't read what I wrote. I said a true nanoprocessor would use a 1 nanometer process, not 16.

Try and view the circuits without a microscope, you can't! We're not talking about the size of the die, or the overall size of the chip, but rather the size of a single logic gate.

By your reasoning microprocessors are not microprocessors as you can view the chip!

Think About It!

User avatar
Dan Honeycutt
Posts: 5258
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 3:31 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Opteron versus Xeon

Post by Dan Honeycutt » Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:58 pm

smirobth wrote:
Dan Honeycutt wrote:
CRoberson wrote:It would not be a nanoprocessor. A 16 nanometer "process"
(not processor) doesn't mean the cpu is 16 nanometers in size.

Think about it; you can easily see the cpu in your computer without
a microscope.
So you would only need a magnifying glass to see a microprocessor.

Best
Dan H.
Not just a magnifying glass .... you need a microscope to see a microprocessor. :lol:
I was just going by what Charles said. If you need a microscope to see a nanoprocessor I figured the microprocessor wouldn't require more than a magnifying glass. Now, if what you say is right then Charles is wrong and you'll need a nanoscope to see the nanoprocessor.

Best
Dan H.

Terry McCracken

Re: Opteron versus Xeon

Post by Terry McCracken » Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:18 pm

Dan Honeycutt wrote:
smirobth wrote:
Dan Honeycutt wrote:
CRoberson wrote:It would not be a nanoprocessor. A 16 nanometer "process"
(not processor) doesn't mean the cpu is 16 nanometers in size.

Think about it; you can easily see the cpu in your computer without
a microscope.
So you would only need a magnifying glass to see a microprocessor.

Best
Dan H.
Not just a magnifying glass .... you need a microscope to see a microprocessor. :lol:
I was just going by what Charles said. If you need a microscope to see a nanoprocessor I figured the microprocessor wouldn't require more than a magnifying glass. Now, if what you say is right then Charles is wrong and you'll need a nanoscope to see the nanoprocessor.

Best
Dan H.
:lol: One Nanoscope in the making :wink:

Nano Nano Regards,
Robin Williams

Dirt
Posts: 2851
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Irvine, CA, USA

Re: Opteron versus Xeon

Post by Dirt » Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:43 pm

Terry McCracken wrote: :lol: One Nanoscope in the making :wink:

Nano Nano Regards,
Robin Williams
I think nanoscope really would make a good generic name for the STM and all of its cousins.

The first microprocessor, the Intel 4004, had a feature size of ten microns, so a sixteen nanometer processor would be getting close to one thousandth the size.

bob
Posts: 20923
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Opteron versus Xeon

Post by bob » Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:24 pm

Terry McCracken wrote:
CRoberson wrote:It would not be a nanoprocessor. A 16 nanometer "process"
(not processor) doesn't mean the cpu is 16 nanometers in size.

Think about it; you can easily see the cpu in your computer without
a microscope.
You didn't read what I wrote. I said a true nanoprocessor would use a 1 nanometer process, not 16.

Try and view the circuits without a microscope, you can't! We're not talking about the size of the die, or the overall size of the chip, but rather the size of a single logic gate.

By your reasoning microprocessors are not microprocessors as you can view the chip!

Think About It!
None of this matters as you can't make a gate with 2 atoms, so it's a moot point...

feature-size is not going _that_ small.

Terry McCracken

Re: Opteron versus Xeon

Post by Terry McCracken » Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:15 am

bob wrote:
Terry McCracken wrote:
CRoberson wrote:It would not be a nanoprocessor. A 16 nanometer "process"
(not processor) doesn't mean the cpu is 16 nanometers in size.

Think about it; you can easily see the cpu in your computer without
a microscope.
You didn't read what I wrote. I said a true nanoprocessor would use a 1 nanometer process, not 16.

Try and view the circuits without a microscope, you can't! We're not talking about the size of the die, or the overall size of the chip, but rather the size of a single logic gate.

By your reasoning microprocessors are not microprocessors as you can view the chip!

Think About It!
None of this matters as you can't make a gate with 2 atoms, so it's a moot point...

feature-size is not going _that_ small.
AFAIK it's already been done with experimental logic gates, some the size of a few molecules, and some the size of a single atom.

Do you think microchip technology is the end of computing? We haven't yet begun!

User avatar
M ANSARI
Posts: 3500
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 6:10 pm

Re: Opteron versus Xeon

Post by M ANSARI » Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:36 am

The biggest problem with die shrinking is voltage leakage. I think Intel has found a cure for that for the moment and 45nm seems good and maybe the next shrink after that. But voltage leakage might end up making any further die shrinks very difficult and thus another technological solution to the problem is needed.

Post Reply