That's all true. I don't see where you or anyone is wrong. But this is what I was talking about:
http://www.physorg.com/news85247225.html
http://nepp.nasa.gov/index_nasa.cfm/934/
http://www.fabtech.org/content/view/2079/74/
This "ultra low-k" was too difficult for AMD/IBM to implement yet but was better than the hafnium based high-k we know for power savings.![]()
JAP?JAP- no need to talk to me like that either.![]()




Reply With Quote
Bookmarks