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: pgerassi who wrote (75570)	3/25/2002 11:34:56 PM
From: Yousef	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Pete, Re: "Defect density does not vary that much between cutting edge fabs at similar times as the wafers supplied to each fab come from the same sources ... And most of those defects are caused by the underlying wafer are they not?" You really are "clueless", Pete ... NO, most defects DO NOT come from the "underlying" wafer. AND, "cutting edge" Fabs DO NOT have the same defect density. A good example of this is LowK dielectric. This process has a whole different type of defect relative to the more standard FSG dielectric. The LowK dielectric process has a much higher defect density than FSG. This is a FACT. Re: "You forgot the most valuable point! The smaller die at the same defect density has a much higher yield. In other words, big is bad!" This is true ONLY if the smaller die provides the same performance and capability of the larger die. I will let other so called "architeture experts" rant and rave on this issue. <ggg> As a side note -> INTC does command a higher ASP for their die ... May be due to higher performance and capability ??!! Make It So, Yousef