SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Elmer who wrote (76602)4/6/2002 8:28:55 PM
From: Charles GrybaRespond to of 275872
 
Elmer, thanks for the info.

C



To: Elmer who wrote (76602)4/6/2002 8:50:35 PM
From: Tony ViolaRespond to of 275872
 
Elmer, >Typically manufacturing defects fall into one of two main categories, stuck at, and delay faults.

Good post. Reminded me of the few years I spent in test.

Tony



To: Elmer who wrote (76602)4/6/2002 11:27:03 PM
From: hmalyRespond to of 275872
 
Elmer Re...System validation is also another tool used for verification and they must have missed that particular speed path in their SV lab as well. When you are struggling to get something out you are vulnerable to mistakes and that's what happened. <<<<<

Elmer, I loved your answer; clear concise and simple enough such that even a concrete guy like me, understood most it. Thanks.



To: Elmer who wrote (76602)4/7/2002 4:35:16 PM
From: Ali ChenRespond to of 275872
 
"Typically manufacturing defects fall into one of two main categories, stuck at, and delay faults."

Yep. Only two? As long as Intel test engineers like
yourself are stuck with two categories and never heard
of IDDQ testing, e.g. see "Types of Defects" portion of

nppp.jpl.nasa.gov ,

AMD investors may sleep well. Maybe it is why the 0.13 P4s
are leaking so wildly, just because you are not familiar
with Iddq current faults, and Intel does not have tools to
support the Iddq testing?

- Ali