home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:23149 comp.arch:9129
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.arch
- Path: sparky!uunet!iWarp.intel.com|ichips!ichips!glew
- From: glew@pdx007.intel.com (Andy Glew)
- Subject: Re: Does a 487sx shut down the 486sx??
- In-Reply-To: tdbear@tandon.com's message of 27 Aug 92 18:38:04 GMT
- Message-ID: <GLEW.92Sep1091842@pdx007.intel.com>
- Sender: news@ichips.intel.com (News Account)
- Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon
- References: <1992Aug19.155448.18248@ilinx.wimsey.bc.ca>
- <1992Aug26.173519.22421@unislc.uucp> <1992Aug27.183804.8605@tandon.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:18:42 GMT
- Lines: 32
-
- >Ah, but there is not more work, actually less. The reason that they
- >offer this chip for less is that they don't have to spend the man-hours
- >testing the coprocessor.
-
- Yeah... like maybe 1/10 cent per chip (test vectors are cheap)
-
- I don't really know if the first poster was correct - the price
- difference was probably as much anticipation of the chips that had the
- FPU removed, which are cheaper both in yield, area, and testing - but
- I would like to correct the second statement.
-
- Test vectors are cheap. But tester time isn't. Testers are often the
- manufacturing bottleneck. When this is true, every time unit of tester
- time is a time unit lost on the expensive machinery in the rest of the
- fab - and that machinery costs out at one hell of a lot more than 1/10
- cent per chip.
-
- "Buy more testers" is only part of the answer.
-
- (NB. by "tester" I mean test machinery, not human operators.)
-
-
- --
-
- Andy Glew, glew@ichips.intel.com
- Intel Corp., M/S JF1-19, 5200 NE Elam Young Pkwy,
- Hillsboro, Oregon 97124-6497
-
- This is a private posting; it does not indicate opinions or positions
- of Intel Corp.
-
- Intel Inside (tm)
-