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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (28770)	2/24/1998 3:23:00 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572645

Bill, re:<alignment defects> I agree that alignment defects are a bigger problem with 0.25 as compared to 0.35, but the steppers should be more accurate to take care of that. Putting space between the conductive paths larger than the width of the conductive paths themselves is fruitless because your paths still have to connect and open circuits are as bad as short circuits. I think most flaws are much larger than the feature size (0.25 um) yet much smaller than the die size. For that size flaw, extra spacing doesn't help and smaller die size does help. Does someone on the thread know what minimum spacing is used between "traces" on the metallization layers of an Intel or AMD CPU? Is the minimum typically about equal to the feature size? Is capacitance and coupling a problem for some of the traces, forcing them to be further apart? The inquiring mind wants to know. Petz