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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (112497)	10/5/2000 10:17:48 AM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: "You might want to check out this guy on the Rambus thread who doubts your credentials" No sense looking for trouble. He can come over here and challenge my statement. But to simplify things, look at it this way: Suppose there are on average 50 defects distributed around a wafer. If you have a design that fits 1000 die on a wafer you would see somewhere around 950 good die per wafer, on average over time or 95% yield. Now suppose you had another design that fit 100 die on a wafer. You would see, on average somewhere around 50% yield on the same process with the same defect density. One yields 95% while the other yields 50% and both are running right where they should be for the given process. Comparing yield on the basis of percentage alone is meaningless. Now in view of the above example, with P4 die over 2x the size of the P3 (not my claim but the register's) would you expect to see 70% sort yield when the P3 is running at 80%(again, not my claim but the register's)? The example is a simplification and further assumes you are not rejecting die for speed but hard failures, but you get the point. EP