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: Ali Chen who wrote (229082)3/28/2007 12:43:57 PM
From: combjellyRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872
 
"I was trying to educate ephud on the matter of internal device variability for years"

Yeah, I know. I pointed out an article in EE Times on this issue over a year ago. Suffice it to say that yield is no longer primarily a function of defect density.

And Intel doesn't have the corner on this knowledge, far from it.

"apparently based on proper testing, Intel sells Core parts as 1.86-2.93GHz, and not as 4GHz+ parts as per some anecdotic evidence."

Overclockability as a measure of the health or capability of the process is going out the window. Especially for samples sent to reviewers. Cherry picking samples, a time-honored tradition, says even less about potential than it has before.



To: Ali Chen who wrote (229082)3/28/2007 4:23:48 PM
From: PetzRespond to of 275872
 
Another Phuddian Phalsehood is that he thought that "defect density" was nearly the only parameter that mattered in predicting yields. What is your estimate of the fraction of CPU's that are non-functional because of wafer defects on, say, a 150mm CPU at 65nm node?

Petz


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News