Intel Corp (INTC)

[kpf]

Elmer

Others may not agree with you.

That is what I hope for. I'm here to learn, not to make friends by sharing common errors of a BB. Everybody is invited to attack and destroy what I put on the table. I will do my best to defend mine, but i am willing and I believe capable as well to adopt other's concepts.

DD need not refer strictly to physical defects, but the number used in modeling to predict yield based on data gathered from some high volume process monitor.

Here it begins. There is good reasons for every of many ways to model. I personally prefer Bose-Einstein because it allows approximations for different design-complexities. Others might disagree.

It should include all failure modes which are screened at sort. Based on that, I have referred to.25d/cm2 as a baseline for world class.

It really gets beyond failures nowadays. E.g. you can have all transistors and all interconnects working (no failures) but still cannot use the die because variation does not allow it.

I'm not saying Intel or anyone else actually achieves this but if they claim to then this should be the measure.

I'd guess almost everybody has dd at or even well below world-class levels. SoI a tad higher than bulk, imminent to the technology's large defect areas you can not avoid.

What is your opinion?

The picture of yields of today has many shades and colors beyond couple of numbers maybe sufficient to determine yields ten years ago. Even back then it only allowed for a rough estimate.

K.