And what if 11900K will be competitive (ignoring power consumption) and Intel with their superbly optimised 14nm process can make substantial number of them now? Then they would want it to stand out.
It's not the raw number, but the relative amount. Unless the bin in a very non-traditional manner, there will be more 11700K parts than 11900K parts. Say for example that the top chip represents the 10% best silicon. If you produce twice as many wafers, you still have only half as many chips as those that get put in the bin representing your next 20% best silicon. If your process matures and gets better over time, it just means your 10% best silicon performs better, not that there's more of it.
Look at the statistics (
https://siliconlottery.com/pages/statistics) that silicon lottery has provided as an example of why what you're proposing won't work. Start with Skylake and work your way through the various Intel chips released on their 14 nm process over the years. It did improve and the fastest parts always got just a little bit faster, but the absolute best performance possible could only be achieved by a tiny number of CPUs from any already small number of CPUs that even qualified to be sold as the top-end part.
Even if we lived in a universe that didn't produce those results and instead gave a uniform distribution in terms of yield with respect to performance capability, companies still wouldn't do what you're suggesting. In fact we live in a universe where companies routinely artificially limit the performance capabilities of chips that could be sold as a higher bin part at a higher price because there's a limit to what the market will buy. Even if the 11900K is only 2% better than the 11700K, there are a certain number of people that will spend an extra $200 just to get that last little bit.
Again, look at Silicon Lottery where getting a 5.1 GHz 10900K or 10900KF instead of a 5.0 GHz one costs an extra $200. That 2% difference in clock speed will be purchased by someone. However, a glance back at the binning statistics shows that only 1% of 10900K and 2% of 10900KF processors can hit that 5.1 GHz mark. Rather than sandbagging with the less capable (but vastly more numerous) chips to make the very limited top-end chip look better, you just charge more for the very limited top-end chip. The more rare it is, the more you can charge for it.
Also, the idea of your approach fails for other reasons because using the same logic it makes sense for Intel to sandbag the lower performing parts even more to make the 10700K look more appealing. Of course since the 10700K would have been artificially limited, it means everything below that has to be even more limited to account for that. Why pointlessly cripple 90% of your CPUs just to make the top 10% look more appealing. You'd have to be able to sell them for a lot more than Intel can charge to make up for the difference. Never mind that sandbagging at all when you're behind your competition is flat out stupid.
www.tomshardware.com
Facebook
Twitter