• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Sony cuts PS5 production by 4 million units

Status
Not open for further replies.

jimbojim

Report me for trolling MS/Xbox threads > 06/27
May 7, 2020
1,052
3,136
470
Like to also see an analysis on how many GAF posts include Sony people whining about the alleged Xbox Discord for said FUD.
Alleged???

It happened. Don't defend them.

What so funny about post 250?

Sony 2 months ago doubled the production to 10 mil. because yields were good. They tried with 15 mil. Didn't worked, back to 11 mil. What's the problem?
 

CatLady

Gold Member
Jun 12, 2018
2,947
8,950
605
Alleged???

It happened. Don't defend them.

What so funny about post 250?

Sony 2 months ago doubled the production to 10 mil. because yields were good. They tried with 15 mil. Didn't worked, back to 11 mil. What's the problem?
No where does ANY of what you've posted say yields are now miraculously good. They're still bad and they had to cut production because they have to bin half of their chips and therefor can't produce as many as they hoped. That and the Sony Bros constant whining about the alleged Xbox discord is what's funny.
 
Oct 26, 2018
12,821
16,736
695
Who really cares if it's 10, 11 or 15 million?

When anyone here buys anything (car, tv, bag of cookies....) do any of you really care how many units are being made, and manufacturing efficiencies? You'll be able to get one soon.

Let me guess, it makes you feel so much better that you're going to be among the 10 million people buying a console. Ok, if it makes you feel extra special that another 9,999,999 people also bought one, go wild.

When I had a Honda Civic 20 years ago, that was the first thing on my mind when I bought it. More the merrier. /s
 
Last edited:

Andodalf

Member
Oct 20, 2013
3,420
3,390
640
23
Earth
Wait ...why is that bannable? I've think I've been banned before for mentioning that number I think and I didn't know why? It seems similar to mention MS increased Xbox One CPU clockspeeds in 2013 in response to Sony's TF advantage on the PS4? I think MS also increased the clockspeed of their GPU and also available RAM after modifying amount reserved for Kinect performance if I remember right?

Sony fans have incredibly thin skin and spam reports on every thread until the mods just ban people to make the sony kids stop. This board is 3/4th Sony so the mods don't want to bother and make them behave as its a lot of work
 

Ass of Can Whooping

on ban warning for 'America hate boner' > 02/06
Jan 16, 2020
1,927
6,750
595
Sony fans have incredibly thin skin and spam reports on every thread until the mods just ban people to make the sony kids stop. This board is 3/4th Sony so the mods don't want to bother and make them behave as its a lot of work
Reported for hurting my feelings
 

Alebrije

Member
Feb 25, 2010
9,369
933
960
Sony fans have incredibly thin skin and spam reports on every thread until the mods just ban people to make the sony kids stop. This board is 3/4th Sony so the mods don't want to bother and make them behave as its a lot of work
 
  • LOL
Reactions: CatLady
Aug 28, 2019
3,108
6,217
585
www.instagram.com
Alleged???

It happened. Don't defend them.

What so funny about post 250?

Sony 2 months ago doubled the production to 10 mil. because yields were good. They tried with 15 mil. Didn't worked, back to 11 mil. What's the problem?
That doesn't make any sense; if the yields were good and they tried pushing for 15 million and, WHOOPS, 4 million of that new batch of those were bad, then that means yields were never that good to begin with.

Yield production doesn't suddenly get worst and retrograde after it's started improving, I've never once heard that ever happening. So either some information's been lost in translation, or the batch to produce the 11 million working chips includes a shit ton of bad yields being tossed aside.

I also would like to know how many chips have actually been manufactured so far. Doubt they have 11 million at this moment; increasing production just means putting in more orders, but that really has no effect on the yields themselves and could be something done in spite of lower yields, in fact. It'd just mean AMD OK them on an increased amount and pay for the wafer production to TSMC for the chips. If the yields are still low but they now need to hit an increased target as specified by Sony, then they eat the cost on the frontend and I'm assuming a company like Sony would need to pay something on top for the bad yields even if contracts were locked for a certain number of working chips since it'd seem like poor business sense for AMD to simply eat the costs for bad yields on their own (unless the contracts already include an amount as buffer to cover a certain expected percentage of bad yields).

The production of the chips should be getting done in phases of regular intervals; as they're ready Sony gets them shipped to the assembly factories and the systems are then manufactured, tested for QA, regulations, etc. I'm guessing, if anything, Sony's contracts in payments for yields already assumes low yields and while I'm curious if AMD gets to pocket the extra cash if yields are better than expected, that isn't necessarily what I was wanting to focus on. Just that, I don't think the production of these chips is the way you think they are.
 

semicool

Formerly 'darrenskywalker'
Feb 5, 2019
441
644
380
So, CatLady CatLady

@6d6f636869 is a japanese reporter from Bloomberg.


Like i've said, bit above where it was before 10 million because yields were good.
Yields are hovering around 50 percent, that's not good. The overall produced number doesn't matter in terms of yield. Percentage success matters in terms of production success. You realize a low percentage implies a huge financial loss for whoever and failure at attempts to make a viable chip? If it's 20 billion but at 10 percent, thats not good. It's called efficiency. This directly affects the BOM costs cause you have to throw away half of your SOC product in this case.
 
Last edited:
Aug 28, 2019
3,108
6,217
585
www.instagram.com
Nobody was sure if the leak was referring to PS5. It was frequency on a code named CPU. Why should keep referring to that instead of the official specs? Xbox went from official specs to official specs. That's different.
At this point it should be obvious Ariel and Oberon were the PS5 chips (Oberon C0 being the PS5 chip) and even back when the leaks happened there was more than enough proof of it i.e the regression testing modes with PS4 BC (why would an Xbox chip need that? How would they even do it, it'd be illegal xD). The reason so many people wanted to dismiss them was because they painted "low" TF numbers for PS5, by association, and also didn't list certain things like RT being present.

Yes, having an air of skepticism on those chips and the leaks themselves in healthy doses was always welcomed but a contingent of folks were ADAMANTLY DENYING everything about the leaks, not just for PS5 but also Series X, and whenever they did they always found ways to bump the PS5 specs higher (sometimes much higher) than XSX's on TF grounds. The obsession with TFs was real, and some of us even back then were trying to say that TFs didn't mean everything, but no one was listening.

Even when analysis from quite well-informed people on places like B3D and on Twitter through Komachi & Rogane were able to figure out some things to explain why Oberon had listing data the way it did (Ariel iGPU profile lists for regression testing, Ariel being RDNA1 therefore no RT built in while Oberon likely had the RT hardware but it was disabled/not needed for regression testing, etc.), others still dismissed it. Also never mind that the timing of the leaks generally coincided well with the timing of PS4/XBO leaks before the start of that generation as well, and I don't remember people being so adamant that the chips and specs eventually uncovered there was in fact in no way related to either of those systems, especially as time narrowed down.

There are still people who think just because Sony's GPU clock is higher than what the last Oberon revision showed, or that MS's CU count is lower in active units than what the last Arden revision showed, means (at least moreso in Sony's case) that Oberon was not the PS5 chip and is not the PS5 chip. But it is. Because since then we've not had a single other viable chip emerge with data on it, and by this point that would have absolutely happened. The truth is the last Oberon revision was still showing regression tests, and in MS's case, they have always had more CUs enabled (but lower-clocked) on devkits vs. the retail units (less active CUs but higher-clocked), which is what they did with the One X.
 
Last edited:

Cerberus_X

Member
Feb 1, 2020
248
688
285
I could read it a thousand times, doesn't change the fact that Sony clearly wasn't aiming for variable clocks from the start.
Let me guess, Sony personally rang you and tell you this?

Armchair devs like you never fail to amaze me with lol. You really think it was a last minute up clock to gain near Microsoft 😂
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hayfield

CatLady

Gold Member
Jun 12, 2018
2,947
8,950
605
I just want a working console Sony that's all! Got me all scared with this yield nonsense.
I can relate. I'm not getting a PS5, but I would really, REALLY like to know what the XsX yields look like. If they are having the same issue I will probably wait to get one since my 1X is decent (and working).
 
  • Like
Reactions: semicool

RayHell

Member
Jan 11, 2020
156
323
275
At this point it should be obvious Ariel and Oberon were the PS5 chips (Oberon C0 being the PS5 chip) and even back when the leaks happened there was more than enough proof of it i.e the regression testing modes with PS4 BC (why would an Xbox chip need that? How would they even do it, it'd be illegal xD). The reason so many people wanted to dismiss them was because they painted "low" TF numbers for PS5, by association, and also didn't list certain things like RT being present.

Yes, having an air of skepticism on those chips and the leaks themselves in healthy doses was always welcomed but a contingent of folks were ADAMANTLY DENYING everything about the leaks, not just for PS5 but also Series X, and whenever they did they always found ways to bump the PS5 specs higher (sometimes much higher) than XSX's on TF grounds. The obsession with TFs was real, and some of us even back then were trying to say that TFs didn't mean everything, but no one was listening.

Even when analysis from quite well-informed people on places like B3D and on Twitter through Komachi & Rogane were able to figure out some things to explain why Oberon had listing data the way it did (Ariel iGPU profile lists for regression testing, Ariel being RDNA1 therefore no RT built in while Oberon likely had the RT hardware but it was disabled/not needed for regression testing, etc.), others still dismissed it. Also never mind that the timing of the leaks generally coincided well with the timing of PS4/XBO leaks before the start of that generation as well, and I don't remember people being so adamant that the chips and specs eventually uncovered there was in fact in no way related to either of those systems, especially as time narrowed down.

There are still people who think just because Sony's GPU clock is higher than what the last Oberon revision showed, or that MS's CU count is lower in active units than what the last Arden revision showed, means (at least moreso in Sony's case) that Oberon was not the PS5 chip and is not the PS5 chip. But it is. Because since then we've not had a single other viable chip emerge with data on it, and by this point that would have absolutely happened. The truth is the last Oberon revision was still showing regression tests, and in MS's case, they have always had more CUs enabled (but lower-clocked) on devkits vs. the retail units (less active CUs but higher-clocked), which is what they did with the One X.
Even if it was PS5 and it probably was. Those are still speculations on regression testing APU that has never been confirmed by any official and should certainly not be used it as the ground truth.

The initial question was. "Why it's bannable" . Well that's why.

The leak was not in any way a confirmation of the PS5 APU speed. When you produce a wafer, there's some chips that can support different range of frequency. ex: Some at 1700Mhz up to others at 2400mhz. It's on Sony to decide where to make the cut based on production/yield and targeted performance. Testing features and cooling performance on an APU at a specific frequency is in no way a confirmation of intentions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bladed Thesis

Jonsoncao

Member
Dec 10, 2006
3,591
421
1,270
Irvine, CA
At this point it should be obvious Ariel and Oberon were the PS5 chips (Oberon C0 being the PS5 chip) and even back when the leaks happened there was more than enough proof of it i.e the regression testing modes with PS4 BC (why would an Xbox chip need that? How would they even do it, it'd be illegal xD). The reason so many people wanted to dismiss them was because they painted "low" TF numbers for PS5, by association, and also didn't list certain things like RT being present.

Yes, having an air of skepticism on those chips and the leaks themselves in healthy doses was always welcomed but a contingent of folks were ADAMANTLY DENYING everything about the leaks, not just for PS5 but also Series X, and whenever they did they always found ways to bump the PS5 specs higher (sometimes much higher) than XSX's on TF grounds. The obsession with TFs was real, and some of us even back then were trying to say that TFs didn't mean everything, but no one was listening.

Even when analysis from quite well-informed people on places like B3D and on Twitter through Komachi & Rogane were able to figure out some things to explain why Oberon had listing data the way it did (Ariel iGPU profile lists for regression testing, Ariel being RDNA1 therefore no RT built in while Oberon likely had the RT hardware but it was disabled/not needed for regression testing, etc.), others still dismissed it. Also never mind that the timing of the leaks generally coincided well with the timing of PS4/XBO leaks before the start of that generation as well, and I don't remember people being so adamant that the chips and specs eventually uncovered there was in fact in no way related to either of those systems, especially as time narrowed down.

There are still people who think just because Sony's GPU clock is higher than what the last Oberon revision showed, or that MS's CU count is lower in active units than what the last Arden revision showed, means (at least moreso in Sony's case) that Oberon was not the PS5 chip and is not the PS5 chip. But it is. Because since then we've not had a single other viable chip emerge with data on it, and by this point that would have absolutely happened. The truth is the last Oberon revision was still showing regression tests, and in MS's case, they have always had more CUs enabled (but lower-clocked) on devkits vs. the retail units (less active CUs but higher-clocked), which is what they did with the One X.
Well-summarized.
 

RayHell

Member
Jan 11, 2020
156
323
275
I can relate. I'm not getting a PS5, but I would really, REALLY like to know what the XsX yields look like. If they are having the same issue I will probably wait to get one since my 1X is decent (and working).
Stop mixing up yields and unit defect. Intel Core i9-10900K chips that cannot reach 5.3ghz are used at lower frequency as Core i9-10900T and Core i9-10900TE. Those are not defective CPU they just can't reach the top targeted frequency. Sony do the same, they only keep top CPU and discard the one unstable at high frequency. Of course the more performance you want, the lower the yield.

I even saw people comparing this to 360 RROD. 360 chip was perfectly fine, it's the cooling solution that was flawed.
 

semicool

Formerly 'darrenskywalker'
Feb 5, 2019
441
644
380
Even if it was PS5 and it probably was. Those are still speculations on regression testing APU that has never been confirmed by any official and should certainly not be used it as the ground truth.

The initial question was. "Why it's bannable" . Well that's why.

The leak was not in any way a confirmation of the PS5 APU speed. When you produce a wafer, there's some chips that can support different range of frequency. ex: Some at 1700Mhz up to others at 2400mhz. It's on Sony to decide where to make the cut based on production/yield and targeted performance. Testing features and cooling performance on an APU at a specific frequency is in no way a confirmation of intentions.
That may be the "why" but now I logically question that line of reasoning.

Hypothetically, If there was possible info that MS had increased the number of CUs from 40 to 52 on the XSX and it leaked somewhere, I'd definitely would want to know about it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CatLady

skneogaf

Member
Aug 31, 2017
636
756
370
It must be very difficult to guarantee chips that reach 2.23 ghz! I've never seen it done on air on any gpu I've had so their rdna 2 chips must be happier to go higher but 2.23ghz is still mega high so not surprising if it is to do with this.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: RayHell

Andodalf

Member
Oct 20, 2013
3,420
3,390
640
23
Earth
I can relate. I'm not getting a PS5, but I would really, REALLY like to know what the XsX yields look like. If they are having the same issue I will probably wait to get one since my 1X is decent (and working).
One would imagine the XS would need to be very stable as MS is looking to deploy them in Cloud servers, which will sometimes run applications other than just games/Xcloud.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CatLady

jimbojim

Report me for trolling MS/Xbox threads > 06/27
May 7, 2020
1,052
3,136
470
That doesn't make any sense; if the yields were good and they tried pushing for 15 million and, WHOOPS, 4 million of that new batch of those were bad, then that means yields were never that good to begin with.
If the yields were good to double the production from 5 to 10 2 and a half months ago, then they were good. Wasn't it? You can't double the production if yields were bad. Looks like Sony tried to pushed production even further, but bad yields increased, so, they've returned on good yields from before. That's logic sense to me
 

M1chl

Gold Member
Dec 25, 2019
5,143
7,823
730
Prague, Czech Republic
I just want a working console Sony that's all! Got me all scared with this yield nonsense.
Don't worry, console on the shelf are going to be fine : )

Stop mixing up yields and unit defect. Intel Core i9-10900K chips that cannot reach 5.3ghz are used at lower frequency as Core i9-10900T and Core i9-10900TE. Those are not defective CPU they just can't reach the top targeted frequency. Sony do the same, they only keep top CPU and discard the one unstable at high frequency. Of course the more performance you want, the lower the yield.

I even saw people comparing this to 360 RROD. 360 chip was perfectly fine, it's the cooling solution that was flawed.
It was mainly introduction of RoHS which fucked the console and pretty much every consumer electronic from when it was first introduced in 2004 I believe. It's lead-free which means it's not as "elastic" and crack with thermal cycles.


I think they improved the formula a lot, but it's still not as good a as with lead.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: B_Boss

geordiemp

Gold Member
Sep 5, 2013
9,913
12,557
930
UK
No where does ANY of what you've posted say yields are now miraculously good. They're still bad and they had to cut production because they have to bin half of their chips and therefor can't produce as many as they hoped. That and the Sony Bros constant whining about the alleged Xbox discord is what's funny.
FuD is making stuff up, just like you have done just there....and clearly know nothing of semiconductor yields and process.

Classic, and stupid, if it is coordinated at least consult someone with a decent understanding of technology. I would try and explain but you sound as if it would go 10 miles over your head.

Dont worry, if there is a issue wirh a TSMC fab it will also affect Microsoft and Apple if its true, and will be disclosed in the normal manner to markets.

I just want a working console Sony that's all! Got me all scared with this yield nonsense.
Dont buy one then, dont buy an XSX or Iphone either, all comes from the same fab. Duh

The stupidity in this thread is outstanding, there is no hope for the human race.
 
Last edited:
  • Praise the Sun
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: B_Boss and KAOS

mckmas8808

Member
May 24, 2005
44,527
8,820
1,835
If the yields were good to double the production from 5 to 10 2 and a half months ago, then they were good. Wasn't it? You can't double the production if yields were bad. Looks like Sony tried to pushed production even further, but bad yields increased, so, they've returned on good yields from before. That's logic sense to me
I'm not sure why anybody is fighting you on this. It's weird.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: B_Boss

semicool

Formerly 'darrenskywalker'
Feb 5, 2019
441
644
380
Stop mixing up yields and unit defect. Intel Core i9-10900K chips that cannot reach 5.3ghz are used at lower frequency as Core i9-10900T and Core i9-10900TE. Those are not defective CPU they just can't reach the top targeted frequency. Sony do the same, they only keep top CPU and discard the one unstable at high frequency. Of course the more performance you want, the lower the yield.

I even saw people comparing this to 360 RROD. 360 chip was perfectly fine, it's the cooling solution that was flawed.
No the 360 had a ASIC logic defect on the gpu originally causing it to overheat ...till the next revision.
 
Last edited:

jimbojim

Report me for trolling MS/Xbox threads > 06/27
May 7, 2020
1,052
3,136
470
I'm not sure why anybody is fighting you on this. It's weird.
Check this. So, about XSX SOC :


I don't understand all the concerns, 50% yield is not great but is not that bad neither. We don't have the dimension of the PS5 SOC, but since we have the dimensions of the XSX SOC, about 22x16.4mm we can easily estimate the yield. TSMC 7nm node as a defect density of 0.09/cm2, which gives 108 good dies out of 148, about 73%. Out of those 108 dies, not all of them will be able to reach the intended frequency target (that's the binning process), so the actual yield would be closer to 60%.





So yeah Sony may have lower yield, but their SOC is smaller. If the PS5 SOC is about 320mm2, 20x16mm, they can make 173 of them on a 300mm wafer. At 50% yield in the worst case scenario, that makes 87 SOC that pass the QC. XSX SOC at 60% yield would be 88 certified dies. So price per SOC should be very similar for both of them, at least in the beginning.

Ok just talked to a friend who knows about manufacturing. He had some positive and neagitive thoughts about it

- 50% yeilds are on lower side but not unheard of in high end chips. He estimates Xbox one chip had 65% yeilds in the beginning even with smaller and much more mature design.

- moving higher than 50% yeilds means that they are on the right path and have found a solution for it.

- yeilds are not linear. They are mostly curve where yeilds improve a lot more with passage of time. In a year they will most probably each industry standard .

- 50% yeilds doesn't mean half of the wafer is wasted. It just means that batch of wafer had this issue. Later batches can have much higher yields.

- lower yeilds are less dependent on clocks as these are the first things tested in intial run and more with complexity of the chips they are making.

- lastly if Sony has decreased the number of orders it means Sony is waiting for yeilds to improve hence facing smaller loss.

Hope this answers some of the questions here. I can ask him more of you guys want to know.

From MS presentation :




So, worse production than Xbone. But Sony producing much more PS5 than PS4s in same timeframe


So if XB1 at 28nm was 65% yield, and if 7nm is supposed to be lower yield (from microsoft presentation), it's easier to accept 50% being a reasonable figure.

Also, it all adds up to confirm what we heard about the difficulties at 7nm, the EUV delays made the situation less than ideal.

 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: mckmas8808

semicool

Formerly 'darrenskywalker'
Feb 5, 2019
441
644
380
CatLady CatLady

You can't double the production to 10 million if the yields weren't good then. But they were good. Logic sense. You can laugh all day if you want about that and about Discord.
Why can't you? Percentage at 50 of what you expected? Double the number of orders then and you back to you desired output hypothetically. Apparently that's what they did more or less, nay, what they tried to do, even though yields(percentage wise) weren't good. At least we can both agree it's a mistake to try to increase production when yields aren't good. Which is a mistake Sony made which is why they are correcting their projected output now as per reports.

Just because it would be unwise ...it doesn't mean that action is something people or companies wouldn't do. Case in point.
 
Last edited:

geordiemp

Gold Member
Sep 5, 2013
9,913
12,557
930
UK
Why can't you? Percentage at 50 of what you expected? Double the number of orders then and you back to you desired output hypothetically. Apparently that's what they did more or less, nay, what they tried to do, even though yields(percentage wise) weren't good. At least we can both agree it's a mistake to try to increase production when yields aren't good. Which is a mistake Sony made which is why they are correcting their projected output now as per reports.

Just because it would be unwise ...it doesn't mean that action is something people or companies wouldn't do. Case in point.
Nice story in your head, did you make that all up by yourself or did someone help you ?
 
Last edited:

semicool

Formerly 'darrenskywalker'
Feb 5, 2019
441
644
380
Nice story in your head, did you make that all up by yourself or did someone help you ?
I have to get credit for the challenge thrown down from the people who understand very little about such things. I mean it's not hard for me to understand the situation and the details and it is easy to explain it to fanboys but it's quite hard to get them to understand actually.
 
Last edited:

geordiemp

Gold Member
Sep 5, 2013
9,913
12,557
930
UK
I have to get credit for the challenge thrown down from the people who understand very little about such things. I mean it's not hard for me to understand the situation and the details and it is easy to explain it to fanboys but it's quite hard to get them to understand actually.
I work in semiconductor, you dont have a clue

embarrassing, for you.
 
Last edited:

semicool

Formerly 'darrenskywalker'
Feb 5, 2019
441
644
380
I work in semiconductor, you dont have a clue

embarrassing, for you.
I have a bachelors in computer science and a masters in Computer Science from Harvard and I work as an senior engineer. So on and so on..... Which things are not required for understanding but help a lot. I understand quite well thank you.
 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Member
May 24, 2005
44,527
8,820
1,835
Why can't you? Percentage at 50 of what you expected? Double the number of orders then and you back to you desired output hypothetically. Apparently that's what they did more or less, nay, what they tried to do, even though yields(percentage wise) weren't good. At least we can both agree it's a mistake to try to increase production when yields aren't good. Which is a mistake Sony made which is why they are correcting their projected output now as per reports.

Just because it would be unwise ...it doesn't mean that action is something people or companies wouldn't do. Case in point.
But they "DID" increase production from the initial number. So, I'm confused by your post.
 

semicool

Formerly 'darrenskywalker'
Feb 5, 2019
441
644
380
But they "DID" increase production from the initial number. So, I'm confused by your post.
There's a difference between yield percentage and product output yield. When some people are talking about yield being low, I'm referring to the efficiency of the yield, the percentage hovering around 50 percent for Sony. That is low and troublesome and very costly for Sony. They are still "outputting" 11 million units which is alot of product for launch, but at 50 percent yield they've lost approximately 11 million SOCs of their APU in the process that would be a tremendous financial and time etc...loss.

Because they were originally hoping or projecting for 15 million units, they were originally expecting a yield percentage of around 73 percent.
 
Last edited:

geordiemp

Gold Member
Sep 5, 2013
9,913
12,557
930
UK
I have a bachelors in computer science and a masters in Computer Science from Harvard and I work as an senior engineer. So on and so on..... Which things are not required for understanding but help a lot. I understand quite well thank you.
No you dont, your too stupid, I have 2 degrees, lets go.

Lets talk about TEOS LPCVD, do you use a water cooled trap or a mesh trap, what is the limit in angstroms you can run without backstreaming particulate, what is TEOS process used for, can you spell the precursor, what is a precursor ?
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: mckmas8808

THE:MILKMAN

Member
Mar 31, 2006
6,000
3,681
1,535
Midlands, UK
No you dont, your too stupid, I have 2 degrees, lets go.

Lets talk about TEOS LPCVD, do you use a water cooled trap or a mesh trap, what is the limit in angstroms you can run without backstreaming particulate, what is TEOS process used for, can you spell the precursor, what is a precursor ?


What do I win!?
 

geordiemp

Gold Member
Sep 5, 2013
9,913
12,557
930
UK
Do you know the answers, do you want some SiN ones as well, what is the RI of SiN at 800C with 4:1 DCS to ammonia.

DCS is Dichlorosilane, its reacts slower than silane. I asked basic questions on process and semi.
 
Last edited:

Rygeist

Member
Jan 28, 2019
112
121
240
I just don't buy the production shortage stuff. NVIDIA is doing the same thing. Simple and extremely effective marketing tactic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.