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: Tony Viola who wrote (139683)	7/19/2001 5:03:11 PM
From: Saturn V	Respond to of 186894

Ref < IBM yields and reliability > I do not have comparative yield info for IBM vs others. However it is possible to achieve higher reliability with mediocre yields if cost and high volume constraints are not there. We all accept that higher yields means higher reliability. At a microscopic level if you only use high yielding wafers and scrap low yielding wafers, the reliability will improve. Next the edges of wafers have lower yields and lower reliability. So do not use edge die even if they are functional. If you carry a chip level ID so that a die has wafer no and die location stored on chip , burn in tests can provide leading indicators of future reliability. Chips from wafers with high burn in failures can be scrapped. Obviously none of this is practical for high volume production and most merchant chip manufacturer will have a fit with my proposals. But for mainframes where volumes are low and are less cost sensitive, such ideas merit consideration.