Jump to content


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.

Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.



  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 mollymoo


  • Members
  • 30 posts
  • Local time:03:22 PM

Posted 22 February 2009 - 01:11 PM

I dont get it what significant difference is there between a 90nm processer and a 45nm processer?

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)


#2 hamluis



  • Moderator
  • 56,573 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:09:22 AM

Posted 22 February 2009 - 01:37 PM

Oversimplifying...more power in a smaller space, with less heat.

You might enjoy http://www.betanews.com/article/AMDs_45_nm...lead/1234220042



#3 Sneakycyber


    Network Engineer

  • BC Advisor
  • 6,137 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio
  • Local time:10:22 AM

Posted 22 February 2009 - 01:37 PM

The amount of space the Processor circuit board takes up. The smaller the circuit the more they can get on a silicon wafer decreasing production cost. Generally the smaller processor board also consumes less power. Think of the ENIAC mainframe that used to take up an Entire room. "Besides its speed, the most remarkable thing about ENIAC was its size and complexity. ENIAC contained 17,468 vacuum tubes, 7,200 crystal diodes, 1,500 relays, 70,000 resistors, 10,000 capacitors and around 5 million hand-soldered joints. It weighed 30 short tons (27 t), was roughly 8.5 feet by 3 feet by 80 feet (2.6 m by 0.9 m by 26 m), took up 680 square feet (63 mē), and consumed 150 kW of power.[6] Input was possible from an IBM card reader, and an IBM card punch was used for output. These cards could be used to produce printed output offline using an IBM accounting machine, an example of which would be the IBM 405." Compared to a Palm TX wich has 100's of times the processing power and is 3"x4.5". And uses a small battery.

Credit: Wikepedia
Chad Mockensturm 
Network Engineer
Certified CompTia Network +, A +

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users