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: Tiley who wrote (32385)	5/3/1998 10:29:00 PM
From: Yousef	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571691

Manish, Re: "From what I've heard, the .25u yield problems were not a design rule issue or an aggressive process issue ... it was more a totempole issue from all I've heard. Take this for what its worth" So are you saying that there was a NFET/PFET drive current/sizing issue that caused these "totempole" logic elements to fail at speed ?? Very interesting. Make It So, Yousef

To: Tiley who wrote (32385)	5/4/1998 9:56:00 AM
From: Time Traveler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571691

Since 0.25um is very new, yield problem actually does not apply to describe the production of 0.25um. However, whatever was plaguing the 0.35um would very likely affect the new process as well. If it doesn't, Jerry would not make an emphasis bragging about the solved yield problem for that obsolete 0.35um stuff. Since he did, he knew 0.25um and 0.35um share the same root problems. It was his conscience speaking out. Since Time Traveler does not currently resides in Silicon Valley, please show Time Traveler where the circumstantial evidence is to suggest that AMD has resolved the yield problems. From 2M K6 projected (1.55M this past quarter), with most of them 0.25um, it does not suggest a solved yield problem to Time Traveler, and Yousef. Where is that exponential increase if indeed the yield problems are behind AMD?