SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD)
AMD 233.54-1.8%Nov 7 9:30 AM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: kpf who wrote (219055)12/5/2006 4:06:26 PM
From: Elmer PhudRead Replies (1) of 275872
 
kpf

I don't see why. All else being equal, for a reasonable approximation to yields I'd suggest rather to look at transistorcount than diesize.

Not necessarily so. Die size is a much better predictor within a reasonable range of cache sizes and it includes the size taken by redundancy.

because designs for manufacturability compensate for the above by means of more redundancy for higher transistorcounts.
Edit: Synopsis: For a given design adding redundancy obviously increases diesize and yield. :)

You talk redundancy but you didn't mention cache where it's used. Yes, that will lift yield but at a price. The amount of redundancy you add takes up die size too. There's no reason to add more than you reasonably need, which gets us back to defect density. The lower the DD, the less redundancy you need to add so the lower the die size and the higher the yield. Which makes one wonder if it's related to why AMD reduced the cache size....
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News