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.
Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: willcousa who wrote (35715)7/11/2000 11:21:21 AM
From: Proud_Infidel  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 70976
 
Going from 8"(8*8=64) to 12"(12*12=144) yields 2.25 more chips(144/64). Why do you believe the article should have read 2.5?

BK



To: willcousa who wrote (35715)7/11/2000 11:23:28 AM
From: Proud_Infidel  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 70976
 
Going from 8"(8*8=64) to 12"(12*12=144) yields 2.25 more chips(144/64). The actual number will most likely be even lower in the beginning of 300mm implementation since the yields will not be the same. Why do you believe the article should have read 2.5?

BK



To: willcousa who wrote (35715)7/11/2000 11:24:24 AM
From: Proud_Infidel  Respond to of 70976
 
Going from 8"(8*8=64) to 12"(12*12=144) yields 2.25 more chips(144/64). The actual number will most likely be even lower in the beginning of 300mm implementation since the yields will not be the same. Why do you believe the article should have read 2.5?

BK


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News