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: Yousef who wrote (52534)	4/9/1998 9:45:00 AM
From: Burt Masnick	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Yousef, Re: Mask Problems. I'm only a Ph.D. in EE (though certainly no semiconductor pro) but shouldn't your design rules keep you away from the KNOWN limitations of your production equipment? There are only three possible explanations for what happened and all three are hideous. 1) They didn't know the equipment limitations - totally unbelievable. 2) Engineering knew but "pushed" - unbelievable but slightly possible. 3) Management decreed agressive design over manufacturing and engineering objections - that's real believable. Burt

To: Yousef who wrote (52534)	4/9/1998 12:26:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Yousef - Re: "At .25um, AMD has surely gone to DUV lithography which should give better linewidth control" Why would it take 8 or 9 months to figure out this relatively "straightforward" problem? AMD has been working on a 0.25 micron process since early in 1997 so they surely had one or two DUV steppers around to run the poly mask lithography. I believe the problems are more fundamental than Sanders is letting on. Keep in mind - Sanders said AMD SOLVED their yield problems last quarter - BUT THEIR K6 shipments were FLAT - ZERO GROWTH form Q497. What kind of solution was that? Paul