Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (115439)	6/11/2000 12:58:00 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577901

Re: "Your constrained use of the word "yield" continues to defy my understanding" No kidding??? Re: "Designers use the word to yield to represent the speed distribution and functionality of the manufacturing" And manufacturing people continue to refer to transistors as "those little thingies". The two terms are intended to distinguish between defective die and thus fab output, and the ratio of fast to slow parts. Using one term confuses the issue while using two terms adds clarity. When people here claim (falsely) that CuMine is yielding poorly what are they actually claiming? Are they saying that Intel has lost control of their fabs and most CuMines are lost at wafer sort, resulting in low fab output? Are they saying Intel has great output from their fabs and yet most parts are slow? Are they saying that Intel has poor fab output yet most parts are fast? If I claim that Intel has excellent yields yet say nothing about binsplit, do you know exactly what I'm claiming? Isn't this statement more descriptive? "Intel has always had excellent yields and binsplits have improved considerably recently". Using a single term to describe two factors in inadequate. EP