Featured Articles

Intel refreshes CPU roadmap

Intel refreshes CPU roadmap

Intel has revealed an update to its CPU roadmap and some things have changed in 2015 and beyond. Let’s start with the…

More...
Hands on: Nvidia Shield Tablet with Android 5.0

Hands on: Nvidia Shield Tablet with Android 5.0

We broke the news of Nvidia's ambitious gaming tablet plans back in May and now the Shield tablet got a bit…

More...
Nokia N1 Android tablet ships in Q1 2015

Nokia N1 Android tablet ships in Q1 2015

Nokia has announced its first Android tablet and when we say Nokia, we don’t mean Microsoft. The Nokia N1 was designed…

More...
Marvell launches octa-core 64-bit PXA1936

Marvell launches octa-core 64-bit PXA1936

Marvell is better known for its storage controllers, but the company doesn’t want to give up on the smartphone and…

More...
Nvidia GTX 970 SLI tested

Nvidia GTX 970 SLI tested

Nvidia recently released two new graphics cards based on its latest Maxwell GPU architecture, with exceptional performance-per-watt. The Geforce GTX 970…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Friday, 18 May 2012 09:54

Intel wants conflict free processors

Written by Nick Farrell



Will look elsewhere for minerals


Chipzilla has announced that it wants to use only conflict-free minerals to built its chips by 2013.

Intel had already promised that it would avoid using conflict minerals, and now it's tell the world+dog when that will happen. It wants to have at least one processor that's proven to be built with  gold, tantalum, tin and tungsten which come from conflict free regions.

Intel wants to reach the tantalum goal by the end of this year. The move is part of a wider array of environmental goals that should cut back on the energy use, power and water use by 2020. It means that the Haswell or Broadwell-based chips should not have caused anyone to suffer other than the designers.

blog comments powered by Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments