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: Elmer who wrote (41082)	11/8/1998 11:09:00 PM
From: Maxwell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574006

Elmer: <<So you are saying that the CeleronA and the PII die costs are the same, even though the CeleronA die is much bigger and getting crappy yields (your claim, not mine). That means that the PII yield must be in the 70s also because a wafer costs the same pretty much independent of what product gets put on it. With the same number of total good die even with a smaller die, Intel must be running a lower ISO for the PII than the CeleronA, if your statements are correct. This is most strange Maxwell. The PII is a much more mature product so why is it running at a lower ISO? That is.. if your statements are correct...>> People like to quantify things. There is no good way to do it because there are too many variables. The # MR came up is based up an industry average yield, wafer cost, packaging cost, testing cost, etc. Smaller die is cheaper than larger. Lesser processing time is cheaper than longer. One of the biggest factor that contributes to the cost factor is yield. Yield varies from day to day, week to week, and month to month. One week CeleronA may have a lower cost than PII and next week may be different. In the long run CeleronA is more expensive silicon than PII due to its larger die. If you are so interested in the exact cost you could apply to be a cost accountant for Intel. Maxwell