Yes. But it is not because those other ideas are incredibly stupid, as the other part of your post seems to imply (by "ha!" remarks). Because of limited world-wide resources, the technologies for mass production are selected by biased and partially-informed individuals. This does not prove much about viability of other technologies, this is just a misfortune.
I agree fully here... There are a lot of "great ideas" which would "revolutionize the performance of semiconductors" in fact, but are completely unmanufacturable. Some may one day be manufacturable (advanced lithography, i.e. 193nm, 157nm, EUV), others are expensive niche products (Cray used a lot of GaAs based semi's), others may never come about in commercial products (finfet transistors, etc.).
However, there are negative examples too: e.g. Intel and Rambus technology.
Now you're just trolling...
In this case we should conclude that Intel was intentionally misleading the public by multiplicity of official negative statements about SOI technology, right?
It's amazing how often this board can resemble a Rorschach test. Given the size of Intel's R&D budget, I would guess that there are multiple groups within Intel investigating different technologies at different nodes. The comments from Bohr most likely represented one group, whereas Marcyk is probably in another. Marcyk's group seems to be, however, the one that has been causing the most splash in the past year or so with the extremely small transistor geometries. |
