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: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (219913)	12/10/2006 6:07:32 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Dear Sarmad: implied in the expectation that conversion from 200mm 90 nm to 300mm 65 nm process brings 40% per piece cost savings, is the assumption that %-age yield is the same as 90 nm yield for un-shrunk part This is an incorrect statement. What is being discussed is between 90nm and 65nm both on 300mm wafers. Fab 30 doesn't do 65nm and will continue to make 90nm parts on 200mm until its conversion to Fab 38 at 65/45nm(/32nm?) on 300mm. Also since 90nm was made on 65nm equipment at Fab 36, 65nm production is quicker because measurements made on 90nm are directly applicable to 65nm. So any wafers processed at Fab 36 yield information about how good a yield 65nm would get whether they were 65nm or 90nm. The same will be true at Fab 38 as any 65nm process wafers will yield information about how good would it be with a 45nm process being done on the exact same equipment. It won't occur however for Fab 40 (NY) at 32nm being different equipment. Pete