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 Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (35716)	7/11/2000 11:43:43 AM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Brian, what did I start? The article said that 300 mm wafers should produce 2 1/2 more chips for each wafer. That, taken literally, says 2 1/2 additional chips per wafer, should have said 2.5 times as many (or 2.25, whichever) instead. In any case, AMAT's going back up! Tony

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (35716)	7/11/2000 1:55:15 PM
From: Kirk ©	Respond to of 70976

Going from 8"(88=64) to 12"(1212=144) yields 2.25 more chips(144/64). Why do you believe the article should have read 2.5? Actually, it is 2.25 "more active area" to be technically correct. (assuming no edge loss on the rim. You really need to subtract that from the diameter to get the true active area increase. This was a BIG deal back when I started and we had 1.5" wafers going up to 2" wafers!!!) Not even 2.25 more chips of the same size is really true. You can often squeeze more chips into the lost areas at the edges on larger warfers that you lose on smaller wafers. (hard to explain in words where a simple picture on a napkin is so nice) Often, they just make the same number of larger chips and keep the edge effect loss about the same factor. -OK, this old engineer will now take his anal accuaracy and go back into my hole... 8)