http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32978
10-20% yields. Is this as bad as I think it is? What are the yields on the 360 intel?
10-20% yields. Is this as bad as I think it is? What are the yields on the 360 intel?
Well wake up and smell the coffee. Sony wants to own your soul.Originally posted by: R3MF
i never understand this sony hatred that drips like vitriol from so many internet users.
Originally posted by: R3MF
i never understand this sony hatred that drips like vitriol from so many internet users.
Originally posted by: ZimThe name Sony once stood for quality products at elevated prices, but now it just stands for elevated prices. On top of that, they have become one of the most monopolistic companies on the planet...
Originally posted by: R3MF
if they fall and M$ reigns supreme in the console world then the console bois had better watch out.
here's hoping the PS3 is better than the 360, or at least good enough to maintain their market share against M$
Originally posted by: R3MF
blah blah blah M$ blah blah M$ blah
Defects. It becomes a bigger problem the bigger the chip is. With chips that are one-by-one and silicon germanium, we can get yields of 95 percent. With a chip like the Cell processor, you?re lucky to get 10 or 20 percent. If you put logic redundancy on it, you can double that. It?s a great strategy, and I?m not sure anyone other than IBM is doing that with logic. Everybody does it with DRAM.
Originally posted by: pm
From the original article linked by the Inq:
Defects. It becomes a bigger problem the bigger the chip is. With chips that are one-by-one and silicon germanium, we can get yields of 95 percent. With a chip like the Cell processor, you?re lucky to get 10 or 20 percent. If you put logic redundancy on it, you can double that. It?s a great strategy, and I?m not sure anyone other than IBM is doing that with logic. Everybody does it with DRAM.
The mistake in the last line is a little surprising... that "DRAM" should be "SRAM". But anyway, he has a point that there's not a lot of logic redudancy in microprocessors.
Originally posted by: pm
From the original article linked by the Inq:
Defects. It becomes a bigger problem the bigger the chip is. With chips that are one-by-one and silicon germanium, we can get yields of 95 percent. With a chip like the Cell processor, you?re lucky to get 10 or 20 percent. If you put logic redundancy on it, you can double that. It?s a great strategy, and I?m not sure anyone other than IBM is doing that with logic. Everybody does it with DRAM.
The mistake in the last line is a little surprising... that "DRAM" should be "SRAM". But anyway, he has a point that there's not a lot of logic redudancy in microprocessors.
Originally posted by: daballard
He's talking about the dynamic RAM on the silicon itself. Extra cache lines for redundacy (DRAM) as opposed to an extra logic core in silicon that will only be used if another core is faulty.
It's about twice as big as a Prescott or a Conroe. I'm not quite sure what would cause the yields to be that low.The cell must have a humongeous die to have such horrible yields. Could the real reason the ps3 is delayed so much maybe because they need a smaller process generation to make the cell efficiently?