It’s probably not a big surprise that we’ll see ARM-based chips that offer faster speeds and consume less power next year. But if you’re wondering how chip makers will achieve that, TSMC and GlobalFoundries both say they’ll start producing chips based on 20nm designs in 2014.

That should allow for ARM-based chips that run at up to 3 GHz while using less power than the 28m chips that lead the market today.

arm logo

Theoretically we could see devices with up to 25 percent better battery life and up to 30 percent higher performance.

Today’s top-of-the-line chips from Qualcomm, Samsung, NVIDIA, and Rockchip tend to be based on the less-efficient 28nm architecture and typically don’t reach clock speeds higher than 2.3 GHz.

But it’s not just makers of ARM-based chips that are making processors more efficient. Intel continues to reduce the power consumption of its processors while improving performance — and while once upon a time that only really mattered in the laptop, desktop, and server arena, Intel is making a big play for smartphones and tablets these days.

So in 2014, devices with 20nm ARM chips won’t just be competing with older ARM-based processors, they’ll also be going head-to-head with Intel’s 22nm Bay Trail and Merrifield chips for mobile devices.

via Fudzilla and AndroidPC.es

Support Liliputing

Liliputing's primary sources of revenue are advertising and affiliate links (if you click the "Shop" button at the top of the page and buy something on Amazon, for example, we'll get a small commission).

But there are several ways you can support the site directly even if you're using an ad blocker and hate online shopping.

Contribute to our Patreon campaign

or...

Contribute via PayPal

69 replies on “20nm ARM-based chips to hit 3 GHz in 2014”

    1. Well, not all at once… the product roll out for 14nm will take up to a little over year for all of them to be released and fewer at the beginning…

      Intel 9 Series chipset should bring some very good improvements though…

      While we probably won’t see the 14nm Airmont replacement for the ATOM come out until early 2015…

      And GoboFoundries at least is planning to skip down to 14nm to try to catch up with Intel, instead of going incrementally…

    2. Actually yes, head to head with intel in the mobile phone / tablet market, where intel almost doesn’t exist.

    3. Intel is barely releasing 22nm for smartphones next year…while ARM will have 20nm. Yeah, ARM still wins. Sorry, Intel.

  1. How is this going to put Arm Cortex A-57 into phones IT WON’T it still will use too much power.

    1. Jumping ahead on the road map there… ARMv8 doesn’t start getting pushed out until the later half of next year and they’re waiting on FinFET enhanced 16nm (half node) and 14nm ARM FABs for all of that to go through…

      This 20nm FAB advance will be just for the present range of ARM and AMD processors!

      1. Dude AMD SUCKS OUT LOUD!!!! Kaveri which is AMD’s last hope IS GOING TO FLAT OUT SUCK an AMD is then going to keel over and I am going to laugh. ARM uses too much power these days in order to try to catch up with Intel. Not even 20nm is going to help them against the might of INTEL Haswell which is awesome.

        1. Calm down, AMD can survive for awhile with all the money they’ll be getting from the console design wins.

          While the last thing you should want is Intel to not have competition… only when they’re competing do they do well by their customers… So even if that competition falls behind, they still play a good role…

          And let’s not get too crazy for Haswell and Silvermont… Airmont and Broadwell should be when they really show what they can do…

          1. Ahahahah..But consoles don’t make enough money for AMD to survive much longer. Intel has ARM to compete with AMD isn’t on Intel’s radar anymore. Intel Broadwell mobile in 2014 is going to BE AWESOME!!!! GO INTEL CRUSH AMD OUT OF EXISTENCE AHAHAHAH!!!!!!

          2. Like it or not, AMD has provided end users with the benefit of some competition to Intel. Without competition, CPU prices would be high and performance increases slow. If you don’t believe me, remember the bad old days of Pentium before Athlon came along. Clock speeds were stuck around 200 MHz for a long time before Athlon forced Intel to accelerate development and slash prices.

          3. But its not enough competition to lower prices on mobile CPU’s. I am not an Intel fanboi at all If you are to call me a fanboi then call me a MIPS fanboi.

          4. At least admit it, you’re not only a rabid intel fanboi, you’re an AMD and ARM troll. Every article you post the same rubbish, how about contributing to the discussion or do you not have the intelligence?

          5. No its just that trolling is so much fun. I don’t like AMD and I feel neutral towards ARM.

          6. Did you know you could write some intelligent trolling posts instead of your usual juvenile trash.

          7. You’ve never tried it, so how do you know?

            I’m fine with AMD’s APU’s they are not perfect for everybody but they have some great features and are good value.

          8. I was not referring to you trying AMD’s superior APUs, I was referring to you trying to write intelligent posts…. It’s something you have not tried.

          9. Don’t bother replying. Jml is pro anything Intel and against anything not Intel. Just read his past comments. He might have Intel stock or works for them. Even worse, he’s acting solely based on brand loyalty. Never understood why people are loyal to a company. I understand being loyal to a specific version of a specific product but not a company as a whole.

          10. Wrong I am not pro Intel I am pro Lower power usage and performance per watt. Wrong its just in x86 Intel slaughters AMD NO contest. Sure AMD’s IGP’s are better than Intel’s but they use FAR MORE power to do so.

          11. Can you provide a reliable source where the latest Intel chips have better performance per watt compared to the latest ARM SoCs? Some measurement that can be directly compared and also takes into account the power differences due to varying integrated controllers in Intel and ARM chips. Thanks.

          12. We still have a few months to go before we see reliable data… Right now there are only leaks, with unconfirmed sources like the recent AnTuTu benchmark leak that indicated a 30% advantage for the new ATOM over Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 800 running at near twice the clock speed but without seeing the actual system the results were taken from then it can’t yet be confirmed.

            Though, it is known that Intel based their promotional slides from a Bay Trail T, models Z3770, at up to 2.4GHz and 2W SDP… but we of course need 3rd party confirmation for that as well…

            So, we’ll just have to wait for sample models to get to reviewers and for them to be allowed to release results before we know more…

            Anandtech’s analysis of the architecture information given out so far though suggests we can expect the performance of around a 2010 MBA with Core 2 Duo but with ARM like power efficiency.

            While sample demo units at the last two tech shows indicated that tablets with 2560×1440 to 2560×1600 resolution screens, which do consume significantly more power than lower res screens, would be reportedly getting over 6 hours of average usage… Though, this is before optimized drivers have been released and driver support is critical for supporting features like always connected standby, which even a faulty WiFi driver can mess up and cause far more than normal power usage…

            Also, since Silvermont can be scaled… We’ll see the new ATOM applied to the Celeron and Pentium product range as well…

            Bay Trail M will specifically go to the Celeron and Bay Trail will get Celeron and Pentium branding, with the high end reportedly going up to Octo Core for the server market.

            Along with Bay Trail I for industrial applications such as embedded systems…

            So, we’ll see the new ATOM applied to the full range and not just the mobile market…

          13. He has no data. Jml really is a fanboy. Just look at the content of most of his comments.

  2. Too bad ARM’s Power usage is at an ALL TIME HIGH!!!! Too bad ARM INTEL WINS!!!!!!

        1. why not post something that adds to the discussion instead of just creating noise that people have to ignore, are you just crying out for attention?

          1. Why not try using your brain and post something intelligent if you’re bored, that’s if you have the capacity that is.

            And fyi, using all caps is a cry for attention.

          2. Then Why does ARM and AMD want to feed me more fodder instead ARM and AMD should make better products so I can’t fault in them. ARM and AMD really need to focus on lower power consumption above ALL ELSE!!!!

          3. Intel’s products have plenty of faults, but because you’re biased you ignore them.

            For example, you complain about Temash/Kabini, despite their low-power consumption, by completely ignoring the fact that they cost one sixth the price of Haswell.

          4. Ahahahahah…..Wrong AMD Kabini isn’t that cheap. Sure Intel is expensive but that matters only somewhat to the end consumer because its the OEM’s that make the price for the products based on those chips. AMD really isn’t that much cheaper than Intel these days.

          5. No, you are wrong, Kabini can be had for 50$, mobile Haswell costs about $300.
            OEM’s charge whatever they can get away with, which is why smart people build their own computers, it’s always cheaper to cut out the middle-man.

          6. Sometimes you can’t do that especially for mobile PC’s. So Intel is better even its a bit more expensive. Haswell Crushes Kabini TO THE GROUND!!!!

          7. You can do it easily, just don’t be so anal about size!

            Haswell is great, sure, but 2x the performance for 6x the price is not such a good for most folks.

          8. I don’t think it would end up being even twice the price in the end. Most people should go Intel haswell because its uses as much power as Kabini but it easily 2 to 3 times faster.

          9. Most people don’t need the performance of Haswell, so they should go with the cheaper (AMD) option.

          10. To save money its as simple as that. I don’t care much in the summer because my bill is going to high and there is nothing I can really do about that. But the other 9 months I’d like to keep it as low as possible.

          11. Don’t you think an expandable/upgradable system will save you even more money over the long term? Sure it might cost you $2 a month more, but will probably save you $200 every couple of years.

          12. Wrong I save a lot more than a mere $2 with a low power pc. Also Wrong saving $200 won’t do me much good.

          13. Really? Are you sure about that?? did you do the math???

            Say you use 60W extra:

            60w x 8 hours x 30 days = 14400 w/Hr = 14.4 kW/Hr

            at 15c per killowatt hour, that works out at $2.16 per month.

            So which makes more sense? Spending extra money on a power-saving system, or buying a system that gives you a lot more performance and is going to last you years longer.

            I have a feeling you’re not going to reply to this one because it completely exposes your pointess quest to save money by going low-power.

          14. Uh You’re an idiot I use my PC almost 24/7 SO YES IT DOES MATTER. For me Spending the extra money on a low power system makes more sense.

          15. Then I think you need to get out more… a lot more.

            Desktops have a much bigger power difference between idle and full load, but even if you did use your machine at full load 24/7, that’s still just a $3 per month difference between a machine that uses 30W compared to one that uses 60W.

            All non-idiots would be willing to pay that $3 to get a such a better performing and considerably cheaper computer.

          16. You’re the IDIOT LOW POWER IS AWESOME!!!!! Wrong its at least a $5 difference the way I use my PC’s. All smart people would pay more to use less power.

          17. Please explain how it costs you $5, because my $3 estimate was already based on a maximum load running 24/7.

            I agree that smart people would pay a bit more to use less power.

            But stupid people would pay more for a low-power system that never has a hope of allowing them recoup those power savings.

            Haswell mobile chips cost about $300, but a good desktop intel or AMD chip can be had for about $100. If you think you can save that $200 over the life of your system please elaborate.

          18. So Intel haswell is expensive but they are good and Intel has Zero competition in x86 mobile AMD can’t even touch their awesomeness. Right now AMD has nothing that is low power oh and Jaguar doesn’t cut it. Jaguar IS MUCH TOO SLOW. Intel has its HIGH IPC to fallback on AMD has sucky IPC so its chips SUCK!!!!

          19. You didn’t get remotely close to answering my question, so dial back the ranting and raving and try again.

            How can you save money with a power-saving chip? The numbers don’t stack up.

          20. It’s not just about saving money its about having smaller systems which YOU CAN’T GET WITH A DESKTOP chip well not small enough for me.

          21. I see, so you’re not interested in saving money at all, (despite what you said previously) your primary concern is size.

            That’s fine then, if small (but money wasting) is what you want, you’ll want an intel NUC, a gigabyte BRIX or a Zotac (something)box….. when they get around to upgrading their machines to Haswell that is.

          22. There’s some truth to that, but the really quiet machines are fanless and these are usually a bit bigger.

          23. I don’t have the space for a bigger PC so I need a smaller one than the Mid-ATX tower I can barely fit on my desk.

          24. My 27″ LED monitor. I can fit a mid-Atx Tower behind my monitor but nothing bigger.

Comments are closed.