Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by arn, Jul 24, 2003.
Human translation please.
The first paragraph just says that the writer will tell you something important about the difference between Motorola and IBM production. He also goes on to say that it is uncomfirmed as of yet.
Paragraph two goes on to describe wafer production as similar to taking a photo. They shoot light on the wafer in certain patterns that become conduits for electricity. The success rate is very variable. Sometimes the conduits are bridged by dust and other mistakes. After making the cores they test them using equipment to make sure they hold their own (equipment is made by KLA-Tencor, just had to throw that in because I have family that works for KLA).
IBM's Fishkill plant produces 12" wafers (one of the first in the
world btw). Nearly 80% of the chips are clocking at 1.6 to 2 GHz (category N). There are 105 cores on a PPC970 wafer. 80% of the category P wafers (2.5ghz) are also passing, but Apple hasn't started using those yet. Good news for future PowerMac production, though.
Motorola has 98 7457 cores on a wafer. But there is a problem. There are 5 more inferior cores per wafer than IBMs 970 wafers.
And Motorola has officially abandoned G5.
The article describes a little bit about chip production, but I don't want to translate. You can get an official write-up on production at IBMs website, if I remember correctly.
Can you compare the numbers for P, N, and non-Passing parts ( forgot the letter for this )?
I read another translation that the MacB article has Mot's yields in the .4% range ( which I don't beleive ). Could you provide these numbers here and compare to IBM?
P and N are both suppposed to be yielding 80%.
I think MB was claiming that the G5 never came to be because their prototype yields were .4-1.2%.
They finally posted the translation on the us.macbidouille.com section.
Click on the link and the timeline that follows is interesting, sort of slamming poor Moto. about their innability to perform.
Personally, I don't think the slam on Moto's 7457 lateness is fair. How can the chip be delayed when Moto stated that they'd be out in Q4 2003? They've since moved the date UP to Q3 2003. That means that they should be available at any moment (up to Sept 30). If Q4 rolls around and they're not out, then yeah, bash 'em. But not until then.
BTW, the 7457 is being used by some other company and is almost ready for shipping. I forget who that company was, but Moto had a press release for it a few weeks back.