Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Petz who wrote (25241)	10/22/1997 3:59:00 PM
From: Yousef	Read Replies (1) of 1576588

John, Re: "Why do any of them have to be used for both the 0.35 and 0.25 um process? ... Please explain." The reason I make this assertion is that "bringing up" a .25um process means running at a development volume that is lower than what AMD would run in production after release. Thus it doesn't make financial sense to have a separate dedicated .25um process line running at low utilization. The smart thing financially is to utilize as much of the .25um equipment as possible making money running the .35um process. Running .35um on the .25um equipment also helps to solve process problems (assuming one has a stable, high yielding .35um process). BTW, this is exactly what Intel does at their development Fab D1B. They have a "baseline" process (known good high yielding process) running in the same equipment set that they use for next generation development. This helps the financials and provides invaluable process learning. Then after the developed process is ready for manufacturing, they "copy exactly" to the high volume Fabs. Make It So, Yousef

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next