Question So, Intel DOES "die harvest" after all... according to AT front-page article.

[VirtualLarry]

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13660/amd-athlon-200ge-vs-intel-pentium-gold-g5400-review/

* Intel harvests both 2+2 and 4+2 dies to make G5400 parts. It's impossible to know which one you have without removing the lid and measuring the die area.

Right under and in the comparison chart. Intel Pentium Gold 5400, it says is made from both 2-core, as well as 4-core dies (harvested).

I've personally speculated that Intel has been doing this for years, but the Intel fans on this forum all poo-pooed the idea, and claimed that Intel's yields "were so high that they didn't need to 'harvest'", and that "Intel's brand would be damaged, should consumers ever find out that they 'harvest'".

Well, finally, it's in writing, on AT's front page no less in an article.

So, Intel fans on this board, EAT CROW.

Edit: Honestly, it just makes good business sense to me. Done properly (secretly?), it shouldn't damage the brand at all. But it would be interesting, if truth-in-labeling laws apply to CPUs in that way, such that the packaging of those CPUs in retail, would be required to carry a sticker, "Intel B-stock".

 

[Ajay]

The issues is not that they do it, its that others claimed Intel was not doing it when they clearly are.

But was anyone with credibility saying this? I don’t recall any person of substance making this claim.

 

[realibrad]

But was anyone with credibility saying this? I don’t recall any person of substance making this claim.

I think the thread was a comment to the people that did make the claim. Did it have to be a PM to those specific people?

 

[Markfw]

I think the thread was a comment to the people that did make the claim. Did it have to be a PM to those specific people?

NO, in fact, I don't want any usernames or otherwise referenced, it will just cause flames. Lets just say that SOME members said "Intel will never do that" or "Intel says they will never do that", but in fact they have, and lets leave it at that.

This is a MOD request.

 

[scannall]

Of course they die harvest. It shouldn't be a surprise, and there isn't anything wrong with it as long as the parts meet the claimed specs on the box.

 

[piasabird]

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13660/amd-athlon-200ge-vs-intel-pentium-gold-g5400-review/




Right under and in the comparison chart. Intel Pentium Gold 5400, it says is made from both 2-core, as well as 4-core dies (harvested)

Typically when Intel harvests dies, they disable the parts of the die that makes it an i3/i5/i7. So it does not matter much.

 

[Gt403cyl]

While I haven’t read the entire thread, most of the early replies are spot on, yeilds by definition have “good” and “bad” chips that they had spec’ed for.

The chips that “pass” go out as expected, those that don’t are sorted or “binned” and re-labelled as lower end chips.

The whole “F sku” line coming from Intel comes to mind where they could be potentially using “failed” chips where there is a problem with the iGPU so rather than trash them, they re-market them to recoup some costs.

 

[LTC8K6]

While I haven’t read the entire thread, most of the early replies are spot on, yeilds by definition have “good” and “bad” chips that they had spec’ed for.

The chips that “pass” go out as expected, those that don’t are sorted or “binned” and re-labelled as lower end chips.

The whole “F sku” line coming from Intel comes to mind where they could be potentially using “failed” chips where there is a problem with the iGPU so rather than trash them, they re-market them to recoup some costs.

Yeah, you can recoup costs when you sell the chip with the failed IGP for the same price as the chip with the working IGP.

https://ark.intel.com/compare/190887,186605

 

[Gt403cyl]

Yeah, you can recoup costs when you sell the chip with the failed IGP for the same price as the chip with the working IGP.

https://ark.intel.com/compare/190887,186605

I'm not saying I agree that they should be the same price, not in the least, however if they were a different price, then Intel would be putting a price on the iGPU, so future releases that include iGPU's they could charge more for and base that on the fact the iGPU is worth something.

It's a fine line, but even for $30 less for a non iGPU, would be fine by me.

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm not saying I agree that they should be the same price, not in the least, however if they were a different price, then Intel would be putting a price on the iGPU, so future releases that include iGPU's they could charge more for and base that on the fact the iGPU is worth something.

It's a fine line, but even for $30 less for a non iGPU, would be fine by me.

I'm not sure if Intel has ever sold the same chip with and without the IGP before?

The 2500K and the 2550K were close, but not quite.

 

[Gt403cyl]

I'm not sure if Intel has ever sold the same chip with and without the IGP before?

The 2500K and the 2550K were close, but not quite.

Not with similar sku's that I know of, but one similar set that I can think of is the i7-4770 (w/iGPU) and Xeon 1231 V3 (no iGPU) or Xeon 1245 V3 (w/iGPU)

 

[LTC8K6]

My 1231 V3 is my favorite Haswell chip. It was much cheaper than the 4770/4790 chips, and with a Z97 board it will do 3.8 on all cores.

 

[Kenmitch]

My 1231 V3 is my favorite Haswell chip. It was much cheaper than the 4770/4790 chips, and with a Z97 board it will do 3.8 on all cores.

Out of all the cpus I've ever owned the one that I'll never forget is the 2550k. The chip was a beastly overclocker. Best I got was some limited benchmarking at 5.6GHz on water. Would have loved to seen what it would do on LN2! I saw nothing wrong with Intel offering the 2550k at the time for the right price.