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 Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katherine Derbyshire who wrote (27250)	12/17/1998 3:05:00 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Katherine, >>>Sure, bad processing is bad processing, and yield and reliability are related on individual wafers. But that's not the same as implying, as you did, that an entire fab's output of wafers that passed final test is unreliable.<<< It's not my implication, it's IBM's words (hate to make statements based on another company's words, but that is what they said at a recent conference). Doesn't it make sense that a particular wafer, which could have had poor registration WRT masks or reticles, or some other anomaly, would have marginal, some "good", some bad, die all over the wafer? And, IBM is so very extreme WRT reliability goals for their enterprise servers (not hours or years, but decades of MTBF), that it makes sense to me that they will "eat" a few potentially good but marginal die for reliability sake. Tony