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: burn2learn who wrote (162563)	3/20/2002 12:25:59 AM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 186894

Are the particle defects the ones that cause the most die loss (die impact)? I haven't done any fault isolation work but my understanding is about 70-75% of faults are particulate. Your 70% is based on a X wafer size, is there a shift or change in % due to wafer size, are other defects of more concern at 300mm? I don't know the answers. Maybe other issues are a bigger deal but surely particles are a significant source of defects and according to the article those should favor 300mm. Because the mechanisms of 200 mm and 300 mm tools are similar, comparable numbers of particles tend to fall on wafers of either size. The absolute number of particles will be about the same for both, but thanks to the 300 mm wafer's larger area, the defect density will be about 2.2x better for the 12-inch wafers. Take it with a grain of salt but it's an interesting point. EP