3 ms·
>It’s cheaper to have less manufacturing SKUs and just disable features later. I think you missed the point. If the chips are not stable or have a problem core
by jay_kyburz 6y ago
>It’s cheaper to have less manufacturing SKUs and just disable features later.
I think you missed the point. If the chips are not stable or have a problem core, then fine, dial them down and sell them as capable of doing less.
But if a chip _can_ do x+y and but you lock y away because you don't want your customers doing y, then there is a problem we should address.
- tempay 6y agoThey do make software limitations to make it fit inside their product line. If only one out of eight cores is dead it’ll likely get sold as a 6 core chip not a seven core. If the clock stability limit is slightly too low it will get binned 10% lower for no technical reason. If they didn’t do this everyone would be returning the 6 core versions of a chip until they get lucky and get the 7 core. People already do this a little with overclocking capable chips. Maybe you’d argue they should sell a 7 core chip as well for a slightly higher price but that also means having more product lines and increased manufacturing costs as a result.