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: semiconeng who wrote (153840)	1/4/2002 10:25:56 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

More likely, the variations you would see on edge die are most likely bin split related. Maybe that's what you meant by yield?? As long as there aren't any reliability problems with those edge die, which there have been in the past, even a binsplit sacrifice isn't a problem because it doesn't effect die cost. EP

To: semiconeng who wrote (153840)	1/5/2002 1:40:59 AM
From: Saturn V	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Ref < Nobody wants to spend millions on a piece of equipment, to have poor Cross Wafer Sigma. It just doesn't happen anymore. More likely, the variations you would see on edge die are most likely bin split related. Maybe that's what you meant by yield?? > I am glad that you are so confident. However my experience shows that continuous scaling and shrinking brings new problems to light which were not considered to be an issue historically . Thus the process parameters which affect these `unrecognized problems' are not monitored. And sometimes such `hidden problems' ( manifested as yield and reliability problems ) frequently lurk on the edge of wafers, and go ignored. A Wafer Size Increase thus suddenly expose these problems. For example both you and Elmer referred to poorer bin splits and reliability on the edges. Enlarging the wafer obviously will make these issues worse. However these problems are not fundamental, and once recognized, they are solved by diligent engineering. So my model is that the effective yield will not reach the potential value for six to nine months. As an Intel shareholder I hope that my pessimism is unwarranted.

To: semiconeng who wrote (153840)	1/5/2002 2:01:04 AM
From: wanna_bmw	Respond to of 186894

Semi, Re: ". Labor and overhead cost will be the same per wafer. ---Maybe even cost less." I've seen the same thing in Intel's presentation slides on their 300mm wafer processes. Apparently, the new fabs such as D1C have a far greater levels of automatic operability, thus lowering the cost of hiring people to do it. Carrying wafers from one station to the next, for example, is all done by robots, now. This must have been an early requirement in keeping costs down, so I assume that there are other areas that were made more efficient as well. wbmw