To: pgerassi who wrote (141581 ) 8/14/2001 5:04:01 PM From: fingolfen Respond to of 186894 Hey Pete... several problems with your model...Oxygen implantation for thin mode wafers does not cost $6000 to $10000 a wafer (that is what 4X-6X cost would be). Oxygen is cheap and the power required is cheap (no where near $10000 for one wafers worth) thus, the only cost would be for equipment. So you are implying that a production scale implanter(s) doing 30 wafers per hour would cost (30 wafers per hour * $10K a wafer * 8000 hours a year (some downtime for PM) * 1 year life (probably more than that)) $2.4 billion and that is for about 4800 WPW. I doubt the overall cost would be more than a tenth of that or $1K a wafer. Therein lies most of your problems... a 200mm wafer does not cost $1000... even for high quality EPI. Those are in the ~$100-$200 regime if memory serves. Also, the oxygen implant mode makes very BAD SOI wafers with tons of dislocations. That would result in substantial yield fallout. The implant is also at very high energy, so I don't think your "power required is cheap" assumption holds either. High quality 200mm SOI wafers would cost between cost 4X to 6X what 200mm wafers cost because they don't use the oxygen implant method. Your argument therefore falls apart from the outset because of your flawed cost model...The processing costs after that are little changed except for any additional defects caused by the implantation process. I find that rather difficult to see that being very significant due to oxygen is implanted at each level in the wafer to make CPUs. It is used in making the MOSFET gates, isolating components on the wafer and the area between the interconnects and between layers of interconnects. Thus the defect generation cannot be much more than 2 times the defects in any given SiO2 processing step. Ummm... oxygen is NOT implanted at every level. And it certainly isn't implanted with the degree of energy required to create a oxide sublayer as is found in an SOI wafer...Suddenly SOI does not look to be that far fetched, now does it? Sure, if you have a bunch of wrong data... but if you actually put realistic data in there the numbers will change. Will they change enough to make it an unviable process? Probably not. Intel is still realizing a 30% per die savings moving to 300mm, and the cost of a 300mm wafer IS ~$1000 last I heard. It is therefore possible to absorb a higher raw materials cost in one area if one makes up for it in another. The problem is, staying at 200mm, AMD will have no where to make up the additional cost per wafer (which is at least $400-500 for a 200mm wafer). If you throw yield loss into that, I think you're looking at least at a 20-30% per die INCREASE in moving to an SOI process as opposed to a bulk process. Any COG decrease gained by the oxygen implant method would be more than lost because of yield falloff.