Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert Salasidis who wrote (94927)	1/3/2000 10:08:00 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Robert, re Kryotech, What I do doubt is that the chip's reliability under those conditions is equal to a chip running at its advertised speed. Not to mention the probability of condensation problems. Condensation = water = shorts. Also, what happens when one of those freezers is brought back to room temp. The different thermal coefficients of expansion must wreak unreal havoc with bond wires and a bunch of other things that microminiature assemblies hate. They must have a "maximum number of chills, unchills" spec. Definitely not worth the reliability problems that are bound to happen, even if they gave them away. Tony

To: Robert Salasidis who wrote (94927)	1/4/2000 1:45:00 AM
From: Mani1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Robert Re << What I do doubt is that the chip's reliability under those conditions is equal to a chip running at its advertised speed.>> That is silly. Why would it be less reliable than "adverised speed" if it is running much cooler than "advertised temperature"? Chips can run faster, with the same or better reliability, if they are kept cooler, specially in the temperature ranges that Kryotech keeps them at. That is just physics of semiconductors. You are confusing kryotech with an over-clocked system in which the reliability is indeed sacrificed. Mani