ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Future of Photography (was filmscanners: real value?)



The statement was "larger" chips have lower yield.  That is not necessarily
true, it depends on what you mean by larger, since there can be two
'largers'.  That is what I was clarifying.

What you say below is correct, but, I believe, different from the original
statement, as I read it.

>
> What I'm saying is this, and this is all I have been saying.
> Say there is
> one defect on a wafer and there are four chips covering it.
> The yield is
> 75%. Now say there is one defect on a wafer and there are 100
> chips covering
> it. The yield is 99%. That's a no brainer. I don't care what
> your process is
> (small or large), etc. etc. etc. This is just math.
>
> Frank Paris
> marshalt@spiritone.com
> http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.