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 vs Intel (AMD / INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (2432)	9/20/2007 9:25:10 PM
From: kpf	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2596

Anything that causes yield loss. It should be lumped in with the particle defects to give you the DD number. It's really not that difficult. Nothing appears difficult unless you are aware of the difficulties: a) A die can have defects and is not yield loss: E.g. if the defect is in one core of a dual-core design which allows to package a single-core product or in the cache of a singlecore layout which allows to package it as a Celeron. b) A die can be defect-free but something out of spec prevents to make use of it. This is what you deliberately chose to allow happening with a certain probability in DFM because you modeled avoiding it would cost you more than living with it and therefore is not referred to as defective. Bottom line, i agree we should keep things as easy as possible - but not easier. I see no way lumping the two concepts together without ending up in confusion. K.