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: kpf who wrote (2437)	9/20/2007 9:42:32 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2596

Klaus - A die can be defect-free but something out of spec prevents to make use of it. Then that's a defect as well and should be reflected in the DD number. Considering that the DD is really derived from actual yield numbers then it reflects the effectiveness of the test capability at sort. If AMD lacks the ability to screen parametric defects then their yields are even worse that they're admitting. When do you expect them to find them? BTW, you keep referring to parametrics but you don't define them. There are lots of things that could fall under this category but the only thing that matters is, what do they look like? They show up as a difference in device behavior compared to what you expect it to do. How else could you identify them? Now, question for you, why wouldn't these failure mechanisms be visible at sort and included in the DD numbers?