http://www.fabtech.org/index.php?opt...=1390&Itemid=2

Yields of AMD chips above 50 percent at Chartered

AMD's first foundry partner, Chartered Semiconductor has already been
able to produce fully working die with yields equal to or even better
than those achieved at AMD, according to a March 15th report from Bear
Stearns.The reports authors said that yields were at 50 percent at
Chartered's Fab7 but sometimes even better than those achieved within
AMD's own fab! Furthermore, AMD would be receiving 2,000wspm by July
2006.

No reference was given to the process node the 50 percent yields were
attributed to. The Bear Stearns report also highlighted that Chartered
has brought forward some tool delivery dates to speed up Fab7
production ramp with 12,000wspm being possible in March and reaching
15,000wspm by mid-year.

The report estimated that about one-third of the revenues from Fab7
would come from the Xbox360 microprocessor orders, though these seem to
be flat since ramping last year, staying at 5 to 6,000wspm.

The delay in Sony's PS3 could boost Chartered's business with
IBM/Microsoft potentially adding more wafer runs this year, the report
stated. Broadcom is also cited as a customer of Fab7 using 110-113nm
processes.

bbbl67 wrote:

>Yields of AMD chips above 50 percent at Chartered

Wow!

50 percent is suposed to be good??

chrisv wrote:
> bbbl67 wrote:
>
>
>>Yields of AMD chips above 50 percent at Chartered
>
>
> Wow!
>
> 50 percent is suposed to be good??
>

yes, sometimes. (dumb investment group trimmed)

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”

chrisv wrote:
> bbbl67 wrote:
>
> >Yields of AMD chips above 50 percent at Chartered
>
> Wow!
>
> 50 percent is suposed to be good??

They're probably talking about 65nm rather than 90nm. AMD is likely
already above 90% on 90nm since it's a mature process.

Yousuf Khan

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 12:14:11 -0600, chrisv <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>bbbl67 wrote:
>
>>Yields of AMD chips above 50 percent at Chartered
>
>Wow!
>
>50 percent is suposed to be good??

Seeing that AMD hasn't made any noise about their own 65nm production,
I'll think that this is probably good for 65nm.

--
A Lost Angel, fallen from heaven
Lost in dreams, Lost in aspirations,
Lost to the world, Lost to myself

chrisv <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> bbbl67 wrote:
>
> >Yields of AMD chips above 50 percent at Chartered
>
> Wow!
>
> 50 percent is suposed to be good??

I'm remembering somebody I did some consulting for a couple of decades
ago -- I helped put together a course in realtime programming for
their new processor. They were getting a bit concerned, as their
yield at the time was measured in wafers per chip, not chips per
wafer.

(I don't know whether they ever made it into full production)
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer

On 31 Mar 2006 21:40:36 -0700, Joe Pfeiffer <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>chrisv <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> bbbl67 wrote:
>>
>> >Yields of AMD chips above 50 percent at Chartered
>>
>> Wow!
>>
>> 50 percent is suposed to be good??
>
>I'm remembering somebody I did some consulting for a couple of decades
>ago -- I helped put together a course in realtime programming for
>their new processor. They were getting a bit concerned, as their
>yield at the time was measured in wafers per chip, not chips per
>wafer.
>
>(I don't know whether they ever made it into full production)

What size were wafers then and how many (attempted) chips would fit on
one wafer?

-- David

David Ball <davidbemail-(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> On 31 Mar 2006 21:40:36 -0700, Joe Pfeiffer <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> >chrisv <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> >
> >> bbbl67 wrote:
> >>
> >> >Yields of AMD chips above 50 percent at Chartered
> >>
> >> Wow!
> >>
> >> 50 percent is suposed to be good??
> >
> >I'm remembering somebody I did some consulting for a couple of decades
> >ago -- I helped put together a course in realtime programming for
> >their new processor. They were getting a bit concerned, as their
> >yield at the time was measured in wafers per chip, not chips per
> >wafer.
> >
> >(I don't know whether they ever made it into full production)
>
> What size were wafers then and how many (attempted) chips would fit on
> one wafer?

Sorry, I frankly don't remember.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...
> David Ball <davidbemail-(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
> > On 31 Mar 2006 21:40:36 -0700, Joe Pfeiffer <(E-Mail Removed)>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >chrisv <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> > >
> > >> bbbl67 wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Yields of AMD chips above 50 percent at Chartered
> > >>
> > >> Wow!
> > >>
> > >> 50 percent is suposed to be good??
> > >
> > >I'm remembering somebody I did some consulting for a couple of decades
> > >ago -- I helped put together a course in realtime programming for
> > >their new processor. They were getting a bit concerned, as their
> > >yield at the time was measured in wafers per chip, not chips per
> > >wafer.
> > >
> > >(I don't know whether they ever made it into full production)
> >
> > What size were wafers then and how many (attempted) chips would fit on
> > one wafer?
>
> Sorry, I frankly don't remember.

It's not unusual for a new process or product to have
good_chips/wafers < 1. It takes a while to tune things.

--
Keith

"Keith Williams" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
> says...
>> David Ball <davidbemail-(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>
>> > On 31 Mar 2006 21:40:36 -0700, Joe Pfeiffer <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >chrisv <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> > >
>> > >> bbbl67 wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> >Yields of AMD chips above 50 percent at Chartered
>> > >>
>> > >> Wow!
>> > >>
>> > >> 50 percent is suposed to be good??
>> > >
>> > >I'm remembering somebody I did some consulting for a couple of
>> > >decades
>> > >ago -- I helped put together a course in realtime programming for
>> > >their new processor. They were getting a bit concerned, as their
>> > >yield at the time was measured in wafers per chip, not chips per
>> > >wafer.
>> > >
>> > >(I don't know whether they ever made it into full production)
>> >
>> > What size were wafers then and how many (attempted) chips would fit
>> > on
>> > one wafer?
>>
>> Sorry, I frankly don't remember.
>
> It's not unusual for a new process or product to have
> good_chips/wafers < 1. It takes a while to tune things.
>
> --
> Keith

I for sure remember that being the case with a well known IBM processor
of a while back. Probably 200 mm wafers.