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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (219015)	12/5/2006 2:49:34 PM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275869

the article means that if AMD merely gets a slight inclrease in number of good (shrunk) 65 nm die from a 300mm wafer compared to number of good 90 nm (not shrunk) die on same 300 mm wafer, if all these things are true, then it implies yield is lower.

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (219015)	12/5/2006 2:49:42 PM
From: dougSF30	Respond to of 275869

Elmer, what he is saying (but poorly phrased) is: "% good die" yields are lower for AMD's 65nm than for 90nm. However, AMD's 65nm parts are smaller (although at 66 to 70% of the size, not as much smaller than 90nm as they should be), so depending on how much worse the "% good die" yields are, they could still produce more "die per wafer" with 65nm. And that last one is in fact the case, as AMD has told them that is their definition of "launching 65nm with mature yields"

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (219015)	12/5/2006 2:49:57 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 275869

"Wrong! With the smaller die size AMD should see better yield in terms of both percent and total die." Personally, I think Fuad or Theo came up with this little gem.

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (219015)	12/5/2006 3:30:20 PM
From: kpf	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275869

Hi Elmer, hope you and everybody on the thread is well. With the smaller die size AMD should see better yield in terms of both percent and total die. All else being equal. I don't see why. All else being equal, for a reasonable approximation to yields I'd suggest rather to look at transistorcount than diesize. However, the part I fully agree in is all things are not always equal..., because designs for manufacturability compensate for the above by means of more redundancy for higher transistorcounts. Edit: Synopsis: For a given design adding redundancy obviously increases diesize and yield. :) K. Congrats to Dresden for the milestone. Kudos to Sunnyvale for decency of todays communication. Hats off!