this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
17 points (100.0% liked)

Hardware

815 readers
325 users here now

All things related to technology hardware, with a focus on computing hardware.


Rules (Click to Expand):

  1. Follow the Lemmy.world Rules - https://mastodon.world/about

  2. Be kind. No bullying, harassment, racism, sexism etc. against other users.

  3. No Spam, illegal content, or NSFW content.

  4. Please stay on topic, adjacent topics (e.g. software) are fine if they are strongly relevant to technology hardware. Another example would be business news for hardware-focused companies.

  5. Please try and post original sources when possible (as opposed to summaries).

  6. If posting an archived version of the article, please include a URL link to the original article in the body of the post.


Some other hardware communities across Lemmy:

Icon by "icon lauk" under CC BY 3.0

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AnyOldName3 4 points 4 weeks ago

I think the article's implying that the 10% figure was for a huge chip, and the defect density is low enough that normal-sized chips get a much better yield. If you make a big enough chip even on a really mature process, you'll get a terrible yield. Sometimes you might need a really big chip, though, and be willing to spend a ludicrous amount of money on it.

The article doesn't state the size of the chip the 10% figure was for, though, and just lists examples of things that wouldn't have happened if the figure for a typical chip was that abysmal.