undefined

points

[-]

> Bear in mind thats this 4-7% loss only counts dies that have just one broken CPU unit. There are many other failure modes as well. That just seems very very high.

Is it? I thought the average for lastest-architecture chips was around 5%.

by KaiserPro5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Sorry I was unclear about what "very high" meant.

From what I can see, one can expect about 80-90% yield per wafer, the bit that that doesn't make sense is that the "binned" narrative implies that of those broken parts of the wafer, 25-50% are usable with just one GPU disabled.

To me that sounds wrong, and far too high.

by DanielHB5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I would expect 80% of the failures would have only one core not pass QA.

I remember back in the day it wasn't that unusual for intel to sell quad core CPUs and dual core CPUs that exactly the same hardware-wise, but the dual-core ones didn't pass the QA to be sold as a quad-core.

In fact they sold many functional quad-core CPUs as dual-cores with 2 cores disabled and you could unlock the extra cores with some magic if you got lucky and got one that passed the quad-core QA.

by digikata4 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I had thoughts along similar lines, but there are other possibilities - it could be the older CPU models are built either on older lines and/or with more mature, higher yield processes, and this offering could in part take demand pressure off of top-of-the-line process M5/M4 parts.

by ErroneousBosh5 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> The thing that keeps me questioning is the "its using binned parts" dialogue.

How is this different from any other computer product?