CompuServe Messages

Robert, "Umm, that's 8.5 watts. Those damn decimal points!!!" You're absolutely right. I looked at the ad once again, using a magnifying glass, and there was, indeed, a decimal point there. <Whew!> That's a whole lot better. I couldn't figure out how Motorola managed to build a package that could dissipate 85 watts. Thanks for the correction. "I heard from an inside source that Penium chips are being rejected at a 30% rate during manufacturing." It's not unusual to have low yields, particularly with a new chip that uses new technology. The recipe hasn't yet been tweaked so that they get consistently good yields. When the 80286 came out, iNTEL was getting 2 wafers per die (yes, that's right. Only one die in every two wafers was good). Fortunately, they learned how to make the chip and got very respectible yields after a short time. When I was working for AMD, we always had low yields on new devices. Manufacturing LSI devices is really very much of a black art. It's not just a simple matter…and even the slightest change in the gaseous diffusion stage or metal deposition stage…or any other stage of a chip's manufacture, for that matter, can cause an entire run to turn to s***. The cost to manufacture any chip of equal size is the same. The high prices on brand new chips is the manufacturer's attempt to cash in on the early sales income, which can be considerable in the beginning. The 80286 chips were selling for over $400 each, at first…but after six months or a year, and particularly after AMD was giving them some competition, the prices dropped dramatically. Back in the late 70's, it cost about $200/wafer to manufacture _ANY_ device, regardless of its complexity (afterall, it doesn't cost any more to photolithograph a complex device than a simple device). The difference between complex (i.e., larger) devices and simple (i.e., smaller) devices is that you can get more of the latter on a wafer. The cost for chemicals and labor is almost identical on a per-wafer basis. No doubt iNTEL (and Motorola) are going to cash in on the early demand for their devices by charging premium prices (they charge whatever the market will bear…and they do _lots_ of market surveys before setting the (relatively arbitrary) price). The Pentium and the Moto 601 chips will decline about 15% (or more) in price each year, depending upon sales volume (did they make enough money up front?), yield (are they getting more good die/wafer now?), and competition (is Moto or AMD beating down the price of their competitive devices?). Thanks again on the correction on the 601's power consumption. I was really perplexed by what I read as 85 watts, when—as you pointed out—there's really a decimal in there, making it 8.5 watts. That's a relief. Thanks, -rich-