What you are saying is also right and I think no one but Apple and the vendor that fabricated them know about it.
However, if I am not mistaken, TSMC is the supplier of these devices. Based on the experience that I have had with TSMC their yield is usually low! and we were not even working at 32nm! Their yield should be much lower at 32nm but if they can recycle it like the way they have done it, then it would be worthwhile!
I understand your point and it's quite plausible. But, regardless of yield, if these AppleTV A5s are "rejects", then it means Apple is already producing many more "non-rejects"? I think it's more likely Apple is using AppleTV to test/fine-tune the 32 nm process - overall yield, cost of manufacturing, etc.
But, regardless of yield, if these AppleTV A5s are "rejects", then it means Apple is already producing many more "non-rejects"?
Which are being used in the iPad 2 (2,4) model. Note a side effect of this could be much improved battery life assuming that all other aspects of the HW is kept the same.
Which are being used in the iPad 2 (2,4) model. Note a side effect of this could be much improved battery life assuming that all other aspects of the HW is kept the same.
Ah, I missed that. Should take up my own advice about reading the whole article.
I believe we'll see these chips with two working cores on the next iPhone. The A5X with its 4 graphics core was needed for the iPad due to its huge screen resolution. For the iPhone, a die shrink of the A5 should be enough, assuming the screen resolution remains the same even if the screen size grows.
In this particular case, the "upgrade" causes the CPUs to use a different clock multiplier. It also causes some of the CPUs to gain an additional MB of cache.
AMD has also obstinately "binned" its processors (recovering some revenue for genuinely defective devices by locking out the defective features and selling the feature-reduced device at a reduced price). But in fact, it has been suggested that AMD has also occasionally locked down some otherwise 100% functional CPUs, in situations where current demand for the lower-priced models outstripped their supply of units with genuine defects.
I'd be shocked if Intel didn't also practice some sort of "binning" on many of its other product lines as well (certainly with units that exhibit some genuine defects, but I wouldn't be surprised if they also did it with devices that didn't have any real defects), but it hasn't been publicized as openly.
If the shrinking process lets manufacturers get more peocessors per waffer why is that the prices keep the same?? Even raising! I whould really want to know why Intel keeps that fixed price model? Now you see xeons going up to 4000 dollars!!! It's outrageous!! Why even a diference of .2 ghz cost 500 dollars on a xeon? Another really bad thing about this is that as far as I understand all cpus are born fast by design, then crippled down to slower speeds and blocked so nobody can overclck them to the speed of the fastest model in the lineup. As far as I know a core i7 @ 2.0, 2.2 or 2.4 are the same processor but the slower models get a speed limit. Wtf?
I understand your point and it's quite plausible. But, regardless of yield, if these AppleTV A5s are "rejects", then it means Apple is already producing many more "non-rejects"? I think it's more likely Apple is using AppleTV to test/fine-tune the 32 nm process - overall yield, cost of manufacturing, etc.
Comments
More importantly: WHERE IS THE ATV APP STORE?!
What you are saying is also right and I think no one but Apple and the vendor that fabricated them know about it.
However, if I am not mistaken, TSMC is the supplier of these devices. Based on the experience that I have had with TSMC their yield is usually low! and we were not even working at 32nm! Their yield should be much lower at 32nm but if they can recycle it like the way they have done it, then it would be worthwhile!
I understand your point and it's quite plausible. But, regardless of yield, if these AppleTV A5s are "rejects", then it means Apple is already producing many more "non-rejects"? I think it's more likely Apple is using AppleTV to test/fine-tune the 32 nm process - overall yield, cost of manufacturing, etc.
But, regardless of yield, if these AppleTV A5s are "rejects", then it means Apple is already producing many more "non-rejects"?
Which are being used in the iPad 2 (2,4) model. Note a side effect of this could be much improved battery life assuming that all other aspects of the HW is kept the same.
Which are being used in the iPad 2 (2,4) model. Note a side effect of this could be much improved battery life assuming that all other aspects of the HW is kept the same.
Ah, I missed that. Should take up my own advice about reading the whole article.
Waiting for the obligatory lawsuit: "My Apple TV has a bad core."
Don't eat the bad core of the Apple!
If Intel pulled a stunt like IBM does, the market would riot.
Intel has done it in the past:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel...0-157035.shtml
And they're still doing it now:
https://retailupgrades.intel.com/Pag...?Name=Benefits
In this particular case, the "upgrade" causes the CPUs to use a different clock multiplier. It also causes some of the CPUs to gain an additional MB of cache.
AMD has also obstinately "binned" its processors (recovering some revenue for genuinely defective devices by locking out the defective features and selling the feature-reduced device at a reduced price). But in fact, it has been suggested that AMD has also occasionally locked down some otherwise 100% functional CPUs, in situations where current demand for the lower-priced models outstripped their supply of units with genuine defects.
I'd be shocked if Intel didn't also practice some sort of "binning" on many of its other product lines as well (certainly with units that exhibit some genuine defects, but I wouldn't be surprised if they also did it with devices that didn't have any real defects), but it hasn't been publicized as openly.
If this is standard one can certainly look towards a $50 OS upgrade sometime in the future. One that enables two cores..
Clever stuff from Apple.
If this is standard one can certainly look towards a $50 OS upgrade sometime in the future. One that enables two cores..
Doubtful.
Clever stuff from Apple.
If this is standard one can certainly look towards a $50 OS upgrade sometime in the future. One that enables two cores..
N~o. These chips are included because the cores are faulty. They're not "turned off".
I understand your point and it's quite plausible. But, regardless of yield, if these AppleTV A5s are "rejects", then it means Apple is already producing many more "non-rejects"? I think it's more likely Apple is using AppleTV to test/fine-tune the 32 nm process - overall yield, cost of manufacturing, etc.
Valid point indeed...