As of late last year, only around 5% of the Panther Lake chips that Intel printed were up to its specifications, these sources said. This yield figure rose to around 10% by this summer, said one of the sources, who cautioned that Intel could claim a higher number if it counted chips that did not hit every performance target. Reuters could not establish the precise yield at present.
10% yield sounds like a disastrous level.
I have zero clue about the nuances of yield improvement curves, but an increase from 5% to 10% in ~9 months does not sound good.
Sounds like Intel is going to be exiting the fab business.
Thanks for your interesting posts. 👍
If the 18A had worked now, it would be an impressive comeback, but as it is, it looks more like a repeat of the 10nm fiasco, that never really got to work.
It also sounds very strange that Intel has been spending billions upgrading factories for a process that doesn’t work?
Indeed if these things are true, it’s very difficult to see a future for Intel among the leaders in chip production.
They really need to improve yields fast if they want to make money on it, if it takes to long other processes will surpass it, and it will not have had the initial high profitability to pay off the investment.
So even if it works fine in 1½ years, that may not be good enough.
10% yield sounds like a disastrous level.
I have zero clue about the nuances of yield improvement curves, but an increase from 5% to 10% in ~9 months does not sound good.
Sounds like Intel is going to be exiting the fab business.
Thanks for your interesting posts. 👍
If the 18A had worked now, it would be an impressive comeback, but as it is, it looks more like a repeat of the 10nm fiasco, that never really got to work.
It also sounds very strange that Intel has been spending billions upgrading factories for a process that doesn’t work?
Indeed if these things are true, it’s very difficult to see a future for Intel among the leaders in chip production.
They really need to improve yields fast if they want to make money on it, if it takes to long other processes will surpass it, and it will not have had the initial high profitability to pay off the investment.
So even if it works fine in 1½ years, that may not be good enough.