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: combjelly who wrote (75632)	3/26/2002 2:51:51 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

The whole particle contamination thing came about because Elmer ran across an article that claims the equipment sheds a similar number of particles for a 200mm wafer as a 300mm wafer. I hope you're not implying that I am basing my argument on this because I'm not. I'm not even suggesting that AMD has a particle problem. I'm just showing that the output of Fab30 is far below it's theoretical capacity and a yield problem due to particulates is one possible reason. Another possible reason is speed distribution which is strengthened by the very aggressive channel lengths observed that AMD has had to employ to keep in sight of Intel's tail lights. The continuing slips in .13u introduction is also a possible clue that not all is well in AMD land. Any way, assuming that AMD does have a lower yield than Intel, it is more likely a function of other factors. I make no assumptions about Intel. Intel isn't the one claiming "World Class Yields". Or AMD's yield could be fine, but to get the bin splits they want, they trash can the slower ones instead of selling them. This is very possible too but wouldn't normally be lumped into the yield category unless AMD knows their binsplit is so bad they want to trash the die and not even bother packaging them. If they kill them on the die it falls into "wafer yield" if they wait until later it's binsplit. EP

To: combjelly who wrote (75632)	3/26/2002 11:33:33 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

combjelly Re.... The whole particle contamination thing came about because Elmer ran across an article that claims the equipment sheds a similar number of particles for a 200mm wafer as a 300mm wafer. <<<< Thanks, that would explain a lot. Actually after reading all of the replies to my questions, it appears as if Elmer was just postulating rather than having any hard evidence of any problem at AMd. So apparently I got my undies in a bunch over nothing. However, I learned a lot, probably more than I need or want to know and I wish to thank all of you for the knowledgeable posts.