• dinckel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    14 days ago

    If yield rates aren’t a good metric, what does he think is then? It’s certainly not layoff numbers, or C-suite compensation.

    If after all that investment you’re only able to produce TEN PERCENT of the product successfully, that’s a failure, by definition. Even if they quintuple the yields, that’s still incredibly poor

    • Aa!@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 days ago

      Gelsinger was hired as a known long time engineer, rather than as a business expert. I would trust his numbers from an engineering perspective, even though I was laid off under his rule

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      14 days ago

      All depends on the maturity of the process. 10% for a new design on a bleeding edge process is possibly viable. You’ll then tweak the design and process to get the yield up.

    • orclev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 days ago

      Only exception would be if they can produce those wafers at 1/10th of the previous cost, but I highly doubt that’s the case.

      • iopq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 days ago

        If it’s 1/10 of the cost of purchasing them from TSMC, it’s viable

    • GorgeousWalrus@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      13 days ago

      Yield over die area should be the metric.

      If you have a chip that is 50% of the wafer area, a single fault will lead to a yield of 50%. Now compare it with a chip that is 1% of the wafer area, the same single fault gets a yield of 99%.

      So comparing the yields of two processes without factoring in the die area is not a fair game.