And you think the IBM alliance is the answer? IBM lost relevance as a process technology pace-setter at least a decade ago. Mobile chips tend to have slim margins, and the substrates required for FD-SOI are expensive, adding the equivalent of at least one metal layer to the overall price of a chip. I can see why Soitec is pushing this, but I am not aware of a single demonstrated benefit of FD-SOI, and several well documented downsides (self-heating, floating body effects).
Agree, This article talks about FDSOI as if Intel never compared this to FinFet or any other process technology options. FDSOI or SOI in general was known to semiconductor for long and its benefits and downsides are well documented. In fact if you ruled out the price/cost factor of SOI, there are other technologies which can deliver much better performance/power than SOI.
Since posting this comment, it's been pointed out to me that many people (JP Colinge, D.Flandre, researchers at Hitachi and many more...) did seminal work on fully-depleted/thin body transistors leveraging SOI. We think of this as new, but the industry's been quietly working on this for over 25 years!
Of course Intel looked at SOI...and Bohr even agrees that some will use SOI but based on Intel's evaluation they rejected it.
4/16/2012 7:29 PM EDT
Mark Bohr addresses SOI versus bulk
One on One with M. Bohr
"IBM lost relevance as a process technology pace-setter at least a decade ago."
10 years ago IBM screwed up big time pushing SOG (SiLK)in conjunction with copper interconnect.
UMC licensed the technology from IBM but dropped it because they figured out SiLK was not working.
And now gate first debacle - it's good for one node...
"While Intelís FinFET approach is not expected to enter production until the chip giant rolls out its 14-nm process technology" Isn't it true that Ivy Bridge is using 22nm Tri-Gate, and already in market?
A consortium for better mobile processor makes total sense. One of the many keys solution of reducing power consumption is by achieving complete integration. There may be more than 1 consortia formed due to competitive and political reasons. If it is acceptable to the industry, 1 is always better than multiple. Nonetheless, the industry and market will drive the direction.
An interesting comment from Moore,
"the current infrastructure works out to roughly one server to deliver content to 600 smartphones"
I believe it depends on the kind of server and memory capacity. In addition, the type of services will affect the number of smartphones, or in general, mobile devices a server can deal with. To my experience, a dual Xeon with 128GB of memory shall be able to deal with thousands of simultaneous connections. If Moore is talking about ARM based servers, I have no doubt improvement is necessary.