By: Mark Roulo (nothanks.delete@this.xxx.com), April 22, 2015 1:50 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on April 22, 2015 9:11 am wrote:
> Kurt Marko (kurt.marko.delete@this.forbes.com) on April 21, 2015 11:34 pm wrote:
> > The classic argument for using compound semiconductors is their much higher carrier mobility than pure
> > Silicon. Meaning electrons and holes will move faster through a transistor channel at a given voltage.
>
> Bingo. InGaAs/Ge are faster in particular at
In layman's terms ... how much faster does the final device go?
Does this net out to 10% faster CPUs? Or 50% faster? Or do the transistors
get faster, but the CPUs stay the same speed (in which case why do this)?
> Kurt Marko (kurt.marko.delete@this.forbes.com) on April 21, 2015 11:34 pm wrote:
> > The classic argument for using compound semiconductors is their much higher carrier mobility than pure
> > Silicon. Meaning electrons and holes will move faster through a transistor channel at a given voltage.
>
> Bingo. InGaAs/Ge are faster in particular at
In layman's terms ... how much faster does the final device go?
Does this net out to 10% faster CPUs? Or 50% faster? Or do the transistors
get faster, but the CPUs stay the same speed (in which case why do this)?
