MasterAkumaMatata
Established Member
That's SiC! :lol:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A replacement for silicon in chips
- Thread starter MasterAkumaMatata
- Start date
That's SiC! :lol:
Originally posted by ExCyber@Aug 27, 2004 @ 08:57 PM
Better start saving up for that 1KW power supply and 5lb heatsink...
There's no way in hell I'm aircooling that smoker. I'm piping the heat directly outside the house. Except in the winter, when I'm directing it into the vents. Anyway, I wouldn't expect this process to overtake silicon anytime soon, cost would still be a prohibitive factor. But I can see the 1KW PSUs coming (if you build it, they will come).
lordofduct
Established Member
It says nothing about having to run at that high of a temperature... it just can withstand that high of a temperature. What, are you planning to just push the temperature defenses of this chip to the max for the hell of it, becaue you can?
oh and it mustnt need to be that hot to conduct electricity, well i figure, not positive, but sand paper creates alot of static electricity, and that doesnt get very hot.
oh and it mustnt need to be that hot to conduct electricity, well i figure, not positive, but sand paper creates alot of static electricity, and that doesnt get very hot.
Originally posted by lordofduct@Aug 29, 2004 @ 04:55 AM
It says nothing about having to run at that high of a temperature... it just can withstand that high of a temperature. What, are you planning to just push the temperature defenses of this chip to the max for the hell of it, becaue you can?
It's not so much what I would do with SiC. It's what companies like Intel and AMD would do with it. But again, I wouldn't expect this stuff to become mainstream for a while, and hopefully we won't need to resort to extreme measures by then. In the meantime, SiC will be great for rough enviroments, industrial hardware, etc.
It says nothing about having to run at that high of a temperature... it just can withstand that high of a temperature.
Yeah, except for this:
Silicon carbide (SiC) could be used to make electronic devices that can operate at high power, in fierce heat or at lethal doses of radiation.
and this:
If the breakthrough can be carried forward commercially, it could spawn a wide range of improved devices, including electronics that work in red-hot jet engines
and this:
Previous research has already shown that even at red-hot temperatures as high as 650C (1,202F), silicon carbide devices can function unperturbed and without the need for cooling.
and, this, which, um, was posted at the top of the thread:
The new material is silicon carbide (SiC). It is extremely hard (it is currently used as the grit in sandpaper) and can continue to work as a semiconductor when exposed to high temperatures and radiation. SiC can work at up to 650 degrees Centigrade (1,202 degrees Fahrenheit).
I'm not sure which article you read. Unless you meant it wasn't talking about the chip generating that much heat (which is mentioned in the article in passing). If you can tell me what the functional difference is between the chip withstanding heat generated by itself and heat from outside sources, I would be interested.
What, are you planning to just push the temperature defenses of this chip to the max for the hell of it, becaue you can?
Do you think AMD and Intel won't take advantage of the opportunity? I mean, just imagine an Intel manager saying "Well, we could push clock speeds higher, but what's the point?".
Sorry, were you drinking something? I'll wait for you to go get a towel and wipe off your monitor and keyboard. 😀
lordofduct
Established Member
again excyber... i said it CAN work at high temperatures... never does the article say it HAS to run at high temperatures.... ummm, do i have to pull out the dictionary here for the definitions of CAN and HAS TO, hrmmm. i think you know those definitions. and can make the corollation. So in this corrolation, you would NOT need a heat source that rose your computer to absurd temperatures to run it, you would be able too, but wouldnt HAVE to.
and alexvbr is right... probably wont be mainstream for a long time.... silicon is doing just fine for us right now, and is much cheaper to make chips from. that FAB or RAB or whatever thing (dont feel like clicking the link again) sounds like an expensive process.
and alexvbr is right... probably wont be mainstream for a long time.... silicon is doing just fine for us right now, and is much cheaper to make chips from. that FAB or RAB or whatever thing (dont feel like clicking the link again) sounds like an expensive process.
never does the article say it HAS to run at high temperatures
And neither did I, with regard to the requirements of the chip itself. You came up with that part on your own.
hrmmm. i think you know those definitions. and can make the corollation.
Yes, I correlated "says nothing about having to run at that high of a temperature" to "says nothing about any need for running at that high of a temperature". I think what really threw me was this:
It says nothing about having to run at that high of a temperature... it just can withstand that high of a temperature.
That is, you were drawing a contrast, and used two very different words to mean the same thing. I think I focused on that difference and confused what it was that you were contrasting; resulting in an interpretation like "It can't run at that high of a temperature, but it won't be damaged by it".
I guess I should have realized that you meant something else given the number of counterexamples in the article, but I guess I'm too used to people's attention spans disappointing me. Plus I was tired.
I apologize if I crossed the line.