Re: "It's more than reasonable for 10,000 200mm wafers, it's to be expected, in fact, it's low:"
Dan you better be careful or they'll start calling you a liar too. Just throw in a few "Jerry is God" lines and they'll leave you alone.
As for you post and the issues you raise, you spread them so thin across too many paragraphs. It's hard to respond. But here goes:
"100mm (radius) * 100mm (radius) * 3.14159 (pi) * .8 (edge and cutting loss) * .8 (intel's famous high yields) * 10,000 (wafers per week) / 106mm2 (area of a coppermine or celeron II) = 1,896,809 die per week per Superfab. It really should be closer to 2 million per week than one."
This isn't a bad guess but no Fab is dedicated 100% to CuMine nor is it 100% .18u, but you show better sense than anyone else here has.
Re: "And isn't Intel supposed to have two of those Superfabs and two additional .18 megafabs that build coppermines? And this was before the Israel fab dedicated to coppermines opened (it was supposed to be a flash fab, but when the crown jewels are in big trouble...). "
Like I said none of those fabs are running 100% CuMines and the Israeli fab isn't up to full capacity yet, just like Dresden isn't either even though Dresden had about a 2 year head start.
Re: "So start with 10,000 wspw (wafer starts per week) and add some part (half?) of 3 other very large fabs that are producing coppermines. So there should be something like half of two 5,000 wspw fabs plus the one above plus 6,000? from Israel plus half of 10,000 wspw from the other superfab = about another 3 million die per week giving a rough total of 5 million .18 die per week at .8 yields."
Your estimate of the wafer starts for CuMine is too high. Like I said no fab is 100% CuMines.
Re: "But instead we are seeing 30 million Intel chips per quarter with 60% (according to realworld technology) of those still expected to come from the old .25 fabs through the end of the year so there are only 12 million good chips coming from those 81 million die. I guess that .8 yield estimate was off a bit"
Again you are estimating too many wafer starts and where did you get that 12 million # from?
Re: "I'm sure that I'm off on some of these numbers, but the old story of yields being as good as in the old days doesn't seem to make much sense. So just how poor are Intel's yields? I think that my .8 is high - is it closer to .23? What's the cost of production if 4 Celeron IIs have to be fabbed to get one good chip? What do they sell for after discounts?"
Yes you are off on some of the numbers but it's nice to see someone here who has a clue about manufacturing. As for yields, you know I can't give you exact numbers but I will say they are very good and they have always been very good and there has never been a yield problem since introduction except in the mind of some of the AMDolts.
EP |
