Intel shipping 65nm CPUs in quantity

By Justin Mann on January 25, 2006, 7:46 PM
Intel isn't losing any ground with 65nm rollouts. They've now shipped over 1 Million 65nm dual-core CPUs, the only company to do this as of yet. The 65nm parts Intel has available as the Duo series used in Macs, P4 D 9xx Presler core CPUs, and the P4 EE 955. Intel is already using 300mm wafers for their parts, letting them step up production as compared to the former standard of 200mm wafers.

”Intel is currently punching out 65nm chips at two 300mm-wafer fabs: D1D in Hillsboro and Oregon and Fab 12 in Chandler, Arizona. Two further facilities will be producing 65bn chips in volume by the end of the year, Intel director of process architecture and integration Mark Bohr said.”
As early as Q3 of this year, Intel will be shipping more 65nm parts than 90nm, giving desktop Intel users a much-desired drop in heat output.




User Comments: 16

Got something to say? Post a comment
exscind said:
I can't wait until these 65nm processors hit the market en masse. Hopefully Intel will give AMD a run for its money. AMD hadn't gotten much of a challenge from Intel in the desktop market recently. With Intel's reduced cost of production, if Intel plays smart it will sell the processors at or below AMD's respective processor prices. But the main factor is still performance and heat buildup. If Intel's new processors can overcome those two factors, it may be back in the market with full force very soon.
otmakus said:
I agree that AMD's market share is steadily rising, and Intel is in danger of losing it's lead in CPU competition. For the same performance, AMD has the same price but with better reliability and heat dissipation. Intel is now still in the lead only because of Intel's brand name. If Intel doesn't do anything worthy to sway the balance back, it will continue to lose ground in CPU industry, and that won't be good for us customers.
mav451 said:
Took Intel long enough...I know an Intel employee and I always ask him why the heck Intel sat on its ass with the craptacular NetBurst technology for so long. But, I do think that part of it does have to do with Intel being that much of a larger company, so change takes a bit longer. Competition is good for all of us, and again the thanks should go to AMD for embarassing Intel enough that they would rapidly get out the cooler-running 65nm Duo's...I still can't believe they're wasting anymore time on the P4/Prescott/Netburst junk. Whatever. It'll be gone by the year's end.Just imagine if AMD weren't around...Intel would probably still be pushing the P4-based crap for at least another year and a half. Scary thought.
Kaleid said:
AMD's marketshare is still only 21.4% for the x86 market so I'm going to stay with AMD for a while. Not just better performance for the price, but also cheaper to run because of lower power demands.AMD once again hits the roaring 20s:[url]http://news.com.com/AMD+once+again+hits+the+roaring
20s/2100-1006_3-6030509.html?tag=nefd.top[/url]
asphix said:
[b]Originally posted by otmakus:[/b][quote]I agree that AMD's market share is steadily rising, and Intel is in danger of losing it's lead in CPU competition. For the same performance, AMD has the same price but with better reliability and heat dissipation. Intel is now still in the lead only because of Intel's brand name. If Intel doesn't do anything worthy to sway the balance back, it will continue to lose ground in CPU industry, and that won't be good for us customers.[/quote]I agree completely. Its good to see AMD getting returns from their great product releases.. but intel needs to step things up if they want to keep their position.
canadian said:
I personally prefer Intel, simply because they are not that bad. They are better than AMD, in some programs. AMD is better in gaming. Its just the way there designed. But the big thing for me, is the reliability of Intel.
sjps220 said:
I've had more success with AMD chips than intel and I'm a gamer so I tend to side with AMD. Now what does the 65nm mean for consumers? Will they be faster? More Energy efficient? Will they change the socket number for these chips?
PUTALE said:
to be honest, I have not been so exciting about intel's chip till now. It seems like intel will have a great year this year with all their newly designed cpu. Unless AMD suddenly throws a curveball, otherwise, Intel should release a lot of new interesting good performance cpu this year.
Cartz said:
[b]Originally posted by otmakus:[/b][quote]I agree that AMD's market share is steadily rising, and Intel is in danger of losing it's lead in CPU competition. For the same performance, AMD has the same price but with better reliability and heat dissipation. Intel is now still in the lead only because of Intel's brand name. If Intel doesn't do anything worthy to sway the balance back, it will continue to lose ground in CPU industry, and that won't be good for us customers.[/quote]Nonsense! AMD is finally toppling Intels 10 year monopoly on the processor market, this is great news for the consumer! Now that Intel has some serious competition in the processor market, it will be forced to compete through price reductions and bringing superior products to market quicker. Intel is already looking ahead to 45nm and beyond, and is trying to push the boundary of what is possible as quickly as possible to break AMDs undisputable hold on the performance crown.At the same time, they have to keep these new products at a reasonable price, or else AMDs comparable products will still be superior. I have absolutely no idea how this could even possibly be construed as bad for the consumer, it's not like Intel is on the verge of bankruptcy.
nathanskywalker said:
[url]http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/01/25/45.nm.chips.from.
ntel/[/url]Well, at least it looks like Intel is already on to their next move.
djleyo said:
im not an intel supporter anymore this cpu looks and sounds good but im preety sure that AMD has something to counter with like always. right now they have the fx-60 and hopefully they will release the fx-62 wich are really fast so im pretty sure AMD will come out winning ***AMD reminds us that GHZ dont mean anything
PanicX said:
I thought most of you guys had read the Yonah processor review at anandtech, but from these posts I gather not.[url=http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i
2627]Intel Yonah Performance Preview[/url]It trumps Athlon X2 4200+ in most tasks, not bad at all for a laptop processor.
MonkeyMan said:
I'm telling you guys, Intel is going to be a force to be reckoned with in 2006. They are concentrating very hard, to bring ground breaking, as well as consumer breaking technology to the table. Great job Intel, and I predict a very successful year for you in 2006.
gamingmage said:
Good job Intel, hopefully this will help them a lot or somewhat at least.
mentaljedi said:
AMD caught Intel by suprise, no debate on that. The question on that is will Intel respond? I think that Intel will come with a huge comback but not enough to wipe AMD away. Within 5 years, Intel will probably have the same tyoe of market share ratio as Coca coal does to Pepsi and as Nvidia does to ATI. Which is a good thing in my opnion. Anyway, i definatly wouldn't say Intel has been doing bad. Just that AMD has been doing better. But will that change? Well, thats for us to judge...
jmag034 said:
65nm hasnt really offered that much improvement over 90nm so at this time im staying with 90nm products.
Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.