Tench, "no one would think of buying anything less than 3.8 GHz ..."
You misunderstand, or intentionally shift the accent. That is not what I said (or meant). To my personal taste, no one would think of buying anything MORE than 2 - 2.4GHz, there is no practical urge. However, Intel needs to prevent an erosion of it's image as undisputed performance leader, and for this reason you need 4-4.4GHz chips NOW, even if you can supply them only to reviewers or for SPEC submissions. It looks like you can't make them currently, period.
"the "proof" of your assertions come from your knowledge of "transistor variability" ..."
It was not the point, I was trying to help Elmer to understand a simple thingy that being at "defect density" below certain point is not a guarantee of desired spectrum of otherwise functional products. That's why I like to bring back the classic example of "One Million CuMines Per Week". With two generations down the technology road, new effects give more troubles for sort at wafer level, not less.
"Possibility doesn't equal proof."
Who gives a duck. I just tried to help you to set proper expectations about real meaning of "world-class defect density", especially for future "65nm node".
Cheers,
- Ali |
