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: pgerassi who wrote (118054)	6/28/2000 2:39:00 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576688

Re: "You have stated that it is better. The "it is better" has failed to show up in the marketplace yet. The last steppings have not shown much "improvement". When this is apparent, I will admit to it" I am in complete disagreement with you on this. There are 14 entries on pricewatch(apparently the standard used here) for 933MHz CuMines. There are pages and pages of entries for 800MHz and above yet for some unexplainable reason people on this thread still cling to the notion you expressed above. It is clear to me that people here will continue repeating the claim that there are no highspeed CuMines anywhere to be found regardless of reality so what's the point in debating it? Re: "If the marketable speeds, change upward, the overall yield of a batch changes downward. by simply changing a marketable bin into an unmarketable bin" If if if... However there are no unmarketable bins but there's really no reason why that should stop you from claiming it. Re: "Now as to your "attempts to increase the speed distribution curve does not impact yields" goes against historical facts. A case in point is the pushing of the K6-2 from 350 to 400MHz. This caused a new stepping to be tried. It worked in the lab but, it reduced the overall shipping yield. Whether it was that some runs were ok but others were very bad, or simply the percentage of bad chips increased greatly, is not the point. It definitely impacted yields" Yes perhaps AMD did end up with parts too slow to sell but that's not what the term "yield" means. Re: "To increase the speed distribution can be taken in one of three ways, better design, better materials, better ways of using existing materials" How about better routing to cut down on speed paths and newer process revs? Re: "There are cases of this happening in the past, usually happening in pilot lines. There are cases of things that worked ok in the labs but, can not be duplicated on the production floor. This is also true for the third case, better use of materials. The notching process of Intel's would be one example of this. The jury is still out on this one due to its current use" Who's jury? Intel doesn't have to satisfy your judgement, or mine. I think they are doing just fine and I think the data shows that. More CuMines and higher speed CuMines. Re: "So the case is made that attempts to increase the speed distribution, or as statisticians say, shift the speed yield PDF to the right, can impact yields" If Intel tried to screw down the channel lengths in an attempt to improve speed, they could see yield impact. There is no evidence this has happened. They seem to be bringing out new steppings instead, rather than trying to simply squeeze everything out of a static product. Re: "The visability is now higher than it was before for Intel because the competition with AMD no longer allows schedule slippage to covered up by not releasing till everything is running smoothly. AMD has suffered this continuously for years, now Intel will have to learn to deal with it too" On this we can both agree. EP