![]() |
|
![]() | ||
|
Subject:
Price history of raw silicon
Category: Computers > Hardware Asked by: chomsnl1-ga List Price: $20.00 |
Posted:
13 Jan 2004 13:59 PST
Expires: 26 Jan 2004 00:38 PST Question ID: 296101 |
I need to know what the price history is of raw silicon, used for manufacturing integrated circuits (computer chips) from 1990-2003. So the answer has to be an list of price points for those years, including the unit of measure. Bear in mind that this is not about ferro-silicon, which is used in steel manufacturing. | |
| |
|
![]() | ||
|
There is no answer at this time. |
![]() | ||
|
Subject:
Re: Price history of raw silicon
From: haversian-ga on 18 Jan 2004 22:54 PST |
There's a table here ( http://dom.semi.org/web/wchannel.nsf/0/f3b884a74fe032808825673900643081?OpenDocument { you may find interesting. It's got data every 5 years, by ingot size. I'm not finding much else. -Haversian |
Subject:
Re: Price history of raw silicon
From: chomsnl1-ga on 19 Jan 2004 08:24 PST |
This helps, even though it's not the final answer yet. There are three things that I would still need for this question to be answered sufficiently: 1. the document you provided doesn't have all the figures (some appear as white space). Is there perhaps somewhere another copy of this same document with all the tables in tact? 2. I need the price history of raw silicon from 1990 upto now (you indicated that this would be available) 3. I need to understand what the ratio is between the price of raw-silicon metal and high-purity semiconductor-grade silicon Thanks, Charles |
Subject:
Re: Price history of raw silicon
From: haversian-ga on 20 Jan 2004 13:28 PST |
Goof afternoon chomsnl1, You refer to the missing figures for larger ingots, at the top right of the table? Those figures are missing because, at the time, the technology did not exist to cost-effectively produce ingots of that size in sufficient volume to supply the market. Furthermore, the machinery to work with wafers of that size did not exist. Thus, no product was sold, and no figures noted. You'll notice the trend from smaller wafers years ago to the current state-of-the-art 300mm wafers used in high-volume MPU production, which yield more MPUs per wafer and are more efficient due to less wasteage at the edges of the wafer. One complication you may want to be aware of is that most of the figures on the table I provided are for what is referred to as "bulk silicon" - that is, a single large vapor-deposited silicon crystal. That is the most common type of silicon used in MPU manufacturing, even today. Also important is strained silicon, in which the crystal has been persuaded to grow with more spacing between adjacent atoms than would be usual which allows for a longer mean free path and thus faster electron propagation through the semimconductor. Strained silicon is naturally more expensive than bulk silicon, but offers higher speed in return. For comparison purposes, I assume you would be primarily or exclusively interested in bulk silicon pricing, as it is still used for the majority of parts produced, correct? Or are you interested in developing an understanding of pricing trends throughout the chip-producing industry? In which case you'll also want to investigate GaAs substrates, even more expensive than strained silicon, but faster still. Regarding point three, you're interested in both the price of raw silicon and the price of ingots suitable for manufacturing every year since '90? -Haversian |
Subject:
Re: Price history of raw silicon
From: chomsnl1-ga on 21 Jan 2004 00:49 PST |
what I mean by point 1, is that figures 1,3,4 are missing in their entirety in the document (there's a white space when I look at the document). Re the type of silicon, I am interested in bulk silicon only. Re point 3, what I would expect there as an answer is that high-purity semiconductor grade silicon is e.g. 500% of the price of raw silicon per unit (weight, size or whatever). So the markup to go from raw to refined silicon. |
Subject:
Re: Price history of raw silicon
From: haversian-ga on 21 Jan 2004 05:49 PST |
Oh! I read "figures" as "numbers", not "diagrams". Gotcha. Offhand, I can't find them, but I've got to get to class. When I get back, I'll keep looking for you. Pafalafa, I don't intend to be claiming this question as my own - if you find the answer, by all means post it. |
If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at answers-support@google.com with the question ID listed above. Thank you. |
Search Google Answers for |
Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy |