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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: semiconeng who wrote (73934)	3/7/2002 5:43:57 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Semicongeng Re...Some small die can fit 3/4/5/6 die on a Mask, some larger die can only fit 1/2. <<<<<< How large is the chrome pattern then. A 10" per side pattern would yield a 1 sq. inch pattern on the wafer, if I read you right. <<<<I've never seen a Mask that can shoot a whole wafer. Imagine the complexity required to create that mask!<<<<<<<<<<< That it would be, but with these small sizes, I thought that the ability to line up the die to within a hundred thousanth of an inch (or whatever)on 9 different passes, for each die and multiplying it by the die/wafer would be worse. Secondly, I was thinking that Intel's big production savings on the 300 mm wafers came from the ability to shoot more die each time. However, if the machines can only do, say, 2 die per stepping, then only the amount of setup time to change the wafers would be shortened. Would that by itself save 30% on production costs?