The Power Of Defective Chips

from the saving-yield dept

Wed, Feb 23rd 2005 11:10am — Mike Masnick

In the semiconductor business, yield is everything. Yield is (basically) the number of chips manufactured that are good vs. those that are defective and need to be tossed out. It often goes ignored in the general business press, but part of the reason Intel was so successful for so many years against competitors like AMD was that their manufacturing process allowed them to have a much higher yield -- meaning that even if competitors could make equally good chips, they could never reach the same margins, as they'd be throwing out a lot more defective chips. It's commonly accepted that in producing chips, a certain percentage (hopefully decreasing over time) are going to get thrown out. However, some researchers are trying to make that waste not so wasteful. They've realized that even defective chips can be useful for some things -- usually simpler processes that might not need as exact calculations, such as for decoding MPEG video. They've now developed a system for testing defective chips to see just how defective they really are, and whether or not they can be reused in other applications or devices. While they say that some chip firms haven't been interested in talking to them, for fear of being associated with selling "defective" chips, it appears that some are realizing that this is pure incremental sales. These are chips that they would otherwise throw out. So, sales of such chips are simply icing on the cake -- and in a low margin business, that icing can be pretty sweet. On the other side of the coin, such chips could also help to make special purpose devices cheaper, since the chips needed to build them will be cheaper.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

3 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

dorpus, 23 Feb 2005 @ 11:46am

Maximum Likelihood Estimators
It could be that the whole of science is, indeed, built on unreliable measurements with unknown errors. We merely take the most plausible explanation that minimizes the scope of the errors, but that can introduce its own biases by assuming the errors are minimal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dorpus, 23 Feb 2005 @ 11:52am
  
  Re: Maximum Likelihood Estimators
  When the errors turn out to be, in fact, larger than that predicted by theory, then we look for new explanations. We can devise more complex models, but they require us to estimate more parameters, which eats up the information available in the data, leaving us with less room for useful predictions.
  
  The number of errors on a chip could be modelled as a Poisson distribution. We live in a logarithmic world in which failures are waiting to happen to us.
  
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
lemon obrien, 23 Feb 2005 @ 2:07pm

Uncertainty Principle?
everything is actually uncertain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]