Back to Article

  • mavere - Thursday, May 31, 2012 - link

    Too bad Intel and Apple couldn't work out a deal on a beefier Ivy Bridge; it would have a been a pretty good setup.

    Apple would foot the bill on volume production because they sell so much of one SKU, while other companies would be able to use the chips on some high end units.
  • JMS3072 - Thursday, May 31, 2012 - link

    "however only one customer was really asking for it and wasn't interested in paying a significant premium for it."

    What's your source for that?
  • CeriseCogburn - Friday, June 01, 2012 - link

    APPL standard operating prodecure Reply
  • iwod - Thursday, May 31, 2012 - link

    The most interesting fact is that they actually produce the die for each specification. And that is something new to me because we always thought GT 1/2 were only disabled die.

    That would also means Intel has mastered another technique of yield and flexibility in its Fab.
  • CeriseCogburn - Friday, June 01, 2012 - link

    So scowling "harvested" while blabbering binning and defective parts just won't do ?
    I thank my lucky stars.
  • fic2 - Friday, June 01, 2012 - link

    I think that Grant's supposition on this was that there was a large enough die size difference between GT 1/2 that it made sense to Intel to have different die for each. They can probably get several more GT 1s per wafer than GT 2s. Also, since GT 1s are much smaller the number of defective chips/wafer is probably smaller.

    and using 300mm wafer and default parameters since I don't know anything about wafer layout it looks like Intel can produce up to ~1400 more die per wafer for the M-2 GT1 than the H2 GT2. So, definitely worth it. Even at 75% yield that is over 1,000 die they can sell and probably $1-200,000 extra $$$.
  • CeriseCogburn - Saturday, June 02, 2012 - link

    Wait, I thought it was all about not wasting precious resources, and bringing computers to the people of the world ?!!
    If Intel can share this gift with 1,000 more people of the world, it would be selfish and evil if they did not.
  • madooo12 - Saturday, June 02, 2012 - link

    Intel is selfish and greedy, they won't share it for free you know Reply
  • seapeople - Sunday, June 03, 2012 - link

    I think it would be better if Intel was taken over the by the government and forced to sell their CPUs to the world at just a hair above manufacturing cost. Then all their employees should share equally in the profits and receive free health care.

    That would be much less selfish and greedy.
  • CeriseCogburn - Monday, June 04, 2012 - link

    Better than getting a super gimped 25 different ways 5 year old brand new core hacked harvested mhz AMD core, isn't it madooo12 ?

    Think of the bazillion wafers amd wastes as they constantly rebrand and gimp their completely harvested cpu line up.
    No wonder they can't make dime one.

    Maybe amd should rename itself to "Wasted Wafers !"
  • JKflipflop98 - Saturday, June 02, 2012 - link

    A lot of other places use defective parts with sections disabled as the lower-tiered parts. Intel doesn't mess up enough die to keep up with demand for the lower-price parts (which always do way more volume than the high-end parts). So instead of wasting die space on a part that you know you're going to purposely gimp in order to sell for less, we just make the smaller die with the low-end specifications.

    You get the part you wanted at the price you wanted, and Intel gets to put extra die on a wafer. It's a win-win.
  • stadisticado - Saturday, June 02, 2012 - link

    Oh there surely is still binning going on, we just haven't seen those products yet. Just think, we have four total die for desktop/mobile. I'm sure once the Core i3/Pentium/Celeron IVB variants get released you'll see that those are definitely downbinned versions of these four with defective EU units/cache/low speed etc. Reply
  • ajp_anton - Monday, June 04, 2012 - link

    Intel rarely harvests dice. I talked to one of their representatives at a computer event once, and he said they just throw away non-functional chips as it's not worth the effort. If they disable parts, it's only for artificial market segmentation and not because of harvesting.
    I don't know how much he's exaggerating, but I wouldn't be surprised considering how good their manufacturing is.
  • CeriseCogburn - Monday, June 04, 2012 - link

    Whereas AMD has a long running list of identical cores with disabled aka crippled parts belched out as standard operating procedure.

    I wonder if there have been more than 3 AMD chips with a hundred different cpu's sometimes.

    Talk about rebranding, AMD cpus are the absolute king of rebranding, for years running.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now