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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kash johal who wrote (41781)	12/8/1997 11:46:00 PM
From: Yousef	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Kash, Re: "Could you clarify the near 100% wafer yield achieved by Intel at Fab. 12." Achieving 100% Fab Scrap Yield (Wafers out/Wafers in) is no "big deal" these days ... I think if you read Paul's post closer - " I said Intel achieved 100% yield on some Pentium (non-MMX) wafers during the start-up of Fab 12 in Arizona. - you would note that Paul is talking about how individual wafers yield ... thus he is referring to "probe yield". You are correct, Kash ... this is very impressive. Make It So, Yousef

To: kash johal who wrote (41781)	12/9/1997 12:44:00 AM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Kash - Re: "Intel's Yields" My reference was to Pentium (non-MMX) wafers - during the startup phase of Fab 12 in the summer of 1996 in Arizona, some of the early runs yielded some wafers with 100% probe (wafer sort) yields. I did not mean to imply that entire runs of wafers had 100% yield. My point is that Intel's wafer fabs are run in a very controlled manner with wafer fab processes DEBUGGED in development BEFORE they are transferred into production. During the recent Intel analysts meeting, Craig Barrett presented a graphic showing Intel's defect densities as a function of time for their various processes dating back to the 1 micron era. The results were IMPRESSIVE. What was very significant is that Barrett presented these results to a room full of 500 analysts that, the day before, attended Jerry Sanders's AMD analysts meeting - at which time Sanders unloaded his bombshell that AMD's yields were still in the pits and that AMD would not achieve their 2,000,000 K6 production levels in Q4. Most of the analysts missed this point - which I think was the most significant point made by Intel at the meeting. They were tunnel-vision focused on sub $1,000 PCs, sub $1,000 PCs, sub $1,000 PCs....... Or - as AMD & Cyrix call them --- sub-zero PCs because they lead to sub-zero (negative) profits. Paul