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: tecate78732 who wrote (228906)	3/25/2007 7:00:04 PM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

>> I'd rather you explained, as you are a graduate of Standford and all you should easily be able to explain this process in easy to understand terms. You mean you want to know what in physics prohibts atoms from being at different energy levels ? And therefor more or less likely to participate in reactions than neighboring atoms, or atoms on another wafer ? I am really puzzled what our friends, of the AMD persuasion, find objectionable in that.

To: tecate78732 who wrote (228906)	3/25/2007 8:00:08 PM
From: neolib	Respond to of 275872

I've got an even better idea: why don't you try to come up with any even vague suggestion of how this statement makes any sense at all: My understanding is that from one wafer to another, there are variations due to random atomic states. Because (at 65 nm and below) there are only a few atoms in each structure, the randon variation in a single atom become significant. So making adjustments (as in AMD's process control method) become less effective, and even self defeating. Because the next wafer does not reproduce the random states of the one where measurements were made.