PB, Re: "I'm curious about where you got your info on relative yield numbers,"
and Re: I'm curious about where you got your info on relative yield numbers:"
Industry. Well, from industry people at conferences I have attended, like IEEE Computer Elements Workshops. IBM specifically is very open about their processes, and even about their yields. And why not, they really are so good that they've got nothing to hide. I haven't seen anything in print from them, like I said, because companies are loathe to put yield numbers down on paper for the public to see. But, they will talk about them openly.
Another thing is that IBM and others have long been convinced that poor yield leads only to poor reliability. I went around and around on this with some Intel haters over on the Intel thread. Finally, someone asked Paul Engel, the best by far expert over there, if I was all wet or not. He said no, I was exactly right.
One more thing about IBM..they have what they call maverick wafers. What they do is that, as they are stepping across the rows and columns on wafers, the computer controlled tester is keeping track of yield. If the tester gets so far into the wafer (don't know what percentage of it) and the yield is running lower than a set standard, they stop testing that one and throw it away! Now, we've heard that certain companies have had yield problems...severe ones, but have yielded the "good" dice, packaged and shipped them. Don't buy a computer built with these companies' chips. Don't ask me who, because my Mom told me if I can't say something good about someone, don't say anything at all.
Tony |
