Replies to post #2900 on Intel Corp (INTC)

[Elmer Phud]

Spokeshave -

Well, first off, I never said SS was of comparable risk to SOI.

I think you did. I called AMD's choice of SOI for Hammer a "hail Mary" and you said the same arguments could be made for SS. That says to me you were implying comparable risk.

With all due respect, I did not even attempt to quantify the risk of SS in even the most abstract terms. How is it then possible that I have exaggerated the risk?

"Every argument you presented can also be applied to strained silicon. Is that, then, Intel's "hail Mary"?"

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=603206

[wbmw]

Spokeshave, Re: 2) The SiGe substrate for SS has 15 times less thermal conductivity than bulk silicon. This results in self-heating and poorer thermal dissipation. This could be a real problem with the very small die size on 90nm and the associated very small cooling surface area.

This doesn't make sense. Higher thermal conductivity means that it's easier to heat up AND cool down. While hot spots will be more common, it will be easier to cool them off.

wbmw