Will Apple offer fewer processor performance tiers in its Apple Silicon Macs?

[theorist9]

Currently (at least as far as I can tell), Apple doesn't offer a choice of processor or graphics performance tier within any of its Apple silicon (AS) form factors (the iPads and iPhones).

I.e., there is only one CPU/GPU option in the 11" iPad Pro, only one in the 10.5" iPad Pro, only one in the iPad, only one in each iPhone form factor (indeed, all current iPhone form factors have identical processors), and so on*.

By contrast, its Intel Macs offer the following number of CPU and GPU choices within each form factor (not necessarily independently) (given as CPU; GPU):
Mini (3; 1), MBA (3; 1), 13" MBP (4; 2), 16" MBP (3; 4), 21.5" iMac (5; 4), 27" iMac (5; 4), Mac Pro(5; 8).

Clearly, there are reasons independent of processor type (Intel or AS) to offer various performance tier choices for each Mac. I.e., the reason there are choices for the Intel Macs but not for the AS i-Devices isn't merely that the former are Intel and the latter are AS.

Yet, at the same time, I am wondering if Apple might decide to offer fewer processor and graphics peformance tiers in each future AS Mac form factor than it does now for its Intel Macs.

For instance, since Intel and AMD already make these processors, there is not much added development cost to offer several processor tiers. But now that Apple is making the chips itself, it may become expensive to offer several different CPU-GPU combinations for each form factor.

Yes, it may just be a matter of changing clock speed, and turning on extra cores; but each time that's done, extensive additional testing is required. Further, Apple may not have as much variation available in its architectures to offer so many choices. E.g., will Apple have (or does it even want to have) the AS equivalent of i3, i5, i7, and i9?

One option that may go away is that of independently selecting GPU memory (as can be done now for the Radeon Pro 5500M in the the 16" MBP), since (IIUC) the AS chips will use unified CPU/GPU memory.


*From Wikipedia:

iPad: 2.32 GHz quad-core (two used) 64-bit (underclocked)

iPad Mini: 2.49 GHz Hexa-core (2× high performance Vortex + 4× high efficiency Tempest)

iPad Air: 1.4 GHz dual-core 64-bit

iPad Pro:

• 12.9-inch 2G, 10.5-inch: 2.34 GHz hexa-core 64-bit
• 12.9-inch 3G, 11-inch 1G: 2.49 GHz octa-core 64-bit
• 12.9-inch 4G, 11-inch 2G: 2.49 GHz octa-core 64-bit

iPhone:

• 11 / 11 Pro / 11 Pro Max and SE (2nd): 64-bit hexa-core Apple A13 Bionic

 

[Jorbanead]

I’d say it’s fairly likely that AS Macs will come with fewer options, simply just because I can’t see how apple could justify the cost of creating that many variations of chips.

My uninformed guess is they will have 3 major chip designs: a low-end, a mid-tier, and a top-end. And within those they can also turn off cores and/or change clock speeds to create even more tiers of chips.

We’re still not sure about dGPU, but pouring through all of the developer videos and reading about their SoC’s, it’s likely the GPU option will be linked to the CPU option since it’s all on one chip rather than separate chips.

 

[theorist9]

I’d say it’s fairly likely that AS Macs will come with fewer options, simply just because I can’t see how apple could justify the cost of creating that many variations of chips.

My uninformed guess is they will have 3 major chip designs: a low-end, a mid-tier, and a top-end. And within those they can also turn off cores and/or change clock speeds to create even more tiers of chips.

We’re still not sure about dGPU, but pouring through all of the developer videos and reading about their SoC’s, it’s likely the GPU option will be linked to the CPU option since it’s all on one chip rather than separate chips.

They could still independently vary the GPU and CPU performance, by adjusting the number of cores for each and/or independently varying their clock speeds. Though this doesn't necessarily mean they will

 

[leman]

I’d say it’s fairly likely that AS Macs will come with fewer options, simply just because I can’t see how apple could justify the cost of creating that many variations of chips.

It’s the other way around The reason why we have so many options with PC CPUs is because it’s a good way for a manufacturer to maximize their revenue. Most different CPU models are the same exact chip, they are just sorted and sold at different performance tiers. This is called binning. The reason behind it that even chips produced as part of the same wafer will have some small differences. A small percentage of chips that can reach higher clocks will be sold at a high premium, while the bulk will be sold as cut down models, often with parts of the chip disabled.

With a mobile phone chip, the performance doesn’t matter this much and so the configuration you get is kind of a lowest common denominator. There will be a variation on power usage, some chips will need more power, some will need less. But it’s not something that a phone user will notice (maybe your battery life will be 15 min longer or shorter than the average).

But now that Apple is bringing their chips to the Mac, they can do binning as well. They could put low performance chips into phones and tablets, higher performance ones into Macs, and they can have premium models capable of even higher speeds. All from one chip design.

 

[ducknalddon]

It's an interesting question. My guess is most of their customers couldn't tell you the difference between an i3, i5 or i7. I've been working in technology for a long time and I'm not sure I really know. Mostly they just want something man enough to run the crappy JavaScript that Facebook is foisting on them.

I suppose it changes a bit when you get to professional requirements but it might be that other features are more important to price discriminate on.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

In my opinion, if Intel offered the option of i9 level features at i3 power usage levels at an i5 price with AMD level graphics, Apple would currently have fewer performance tiers. I also think the low end of the first Apple Silicon is going to outstrip 80% of current user’s needs. So, even it’s it’s a fairly lightly modified A14 class processor that goes in laptops and desktops, it’ll still be more power than most folks will ever be able to grow into.

I tend to think that the main difference between systems will be what ports it provides (because, isn’t the RAM for the DTK in the SoC?) and how much storage it has.

 

[Manzanito]

I’d say only one processor model for the air, maybe the mini and the smaller iMac.

I’m not sure about the mbp, the iMac and the mac pro. A couple of options perhaps for the mbp and the iMac. Possibly more for the mac pro.

 

[Falhófnir]

If you mean the equivalent of i3, i5, i7 U series chips then possibly, as like other chipmakers they will have a degree of binning for the chips after manufacture. If you mean 4 core i5, 6 core i7, 8 core i9 like the H series chips then probably not.

 

[jz0309]

I assume that apples goal is to increase market share, thus they have to be competitive with PC vendors. Intels processor lineup is not going to go away, so I assume Apple will offer choices to compete.
It will be interesting to see this whole development over the next 2 years or so

 

[Jorbanead]

They could still independently vary the GPU and CPU performance, by adjusting the number of cores for each and/or independently varying their clock speeds. Though this doesn't necessarily mean they will

Ah okay I guess that would make sense.

With a mobile phone chip, the performance doesn’t matter this much and so the configuration you get is kind of a lowest common denominator. There will be a variation on power usage, some chips will need more power, some will need less. But it’s not something that a phone user will notice (maybe your battery life will be 15 min longer or shorter than the average).

I find it odd that they don't do this with their phones TBH. To me, there's not enough difference between the Pro and non-Pro models, and a better CPU would certainly be a selling point to the Pro market. The A13 is already crazy powerful, so they could have introduced a B13 chip to put in the iPhone 11 and SE, and use the A13 in the iPhone 11 Pro models. If their A13 chip is already so much better than the competition, I feel they have the headroom to do this. But maybe as you said it just not worth it.

But yes my comments above were actually about binning (turning off cores and/or lowering clock speeds) but I still don't see them creating the 5 different tiers we see today with intel (i3, i5, i7, i9, Xeon) and then within those having different levels of performance and TDP ratings. Maybe its much easier than It sounds.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I assume that apples goal is to increase market share, thus they have to be competitive with PC vendors.

The end goal may not be to increase market share, but, instead to increase the profits they make off of an ever stagnant or shrinking marketshare. Not paying the licensing for Intel’s processor/motherboard designs will likely save a LOT of money. If it sells, they’re making a profit. If it doesn’t, then it means folks are moving more towards iPad-like devices, which they also make, so no big loss.

I don’t think Apple will offer a CPU at all levels Intel does (they don’t currently build systems that use ALL of Intel’s processor range). Apple doesn’t have to be competitive with PC vendors at all. Like the iPhone/iPad, they will only have to be competitive against whatever prior systems have been shipped. Apple realizes that, regardless of the hardware, their OS is the real differentiating factor. Those who want macOS will have no stable supported option other than buying a system made by Apple, regardless of how fast Intel’s current chips are.

 

[aeronatis]

I think we would see minimal fragmentation within the same product configuration:

	iPad Air	iPad Pro	MacBook Air	MacBook Pro 14"	MacBook Pro 16"
CPU	2P + 4E	4P + 4E	4P + 4E	8P + 4E	8P + 4E
GPU	4-Core	8-Core	8-Core	16-Core	24-Core
RAM	4 GB	8 GB (Hopefully)	8 GB / 16 GB	16 GB / 32 GB	16 GB / 32 GB / ...
Authentication	TouchID	FaceID	TouchID	FaceID	FaceID

Therefore:

• MacBook Air would basically have the iPad Pro SOC so that the device could be fanless as it should be, which would already be a performance level the current model cannot compare to.
• 14" & 16" MacBook Pro would have similar CPU performance with 16" having higher GPU option, thus providing small device option for those who do not need higher graphical performance.
• Assuming iPad Pro is already comparable to the likes of MacBook Pro 16", MacBook Pro with 8P+4E CPU will have no trouble providing higher performance than the current model. Graphics is still a mystery, though.
• I assumed Neural Engine would have the same number of cores across the same architecture. If it could be higher for higher end SOC, nobody's gonna say no, of course.
• I think the configuration option for each product would be much simpler to the point of only RAM & SSD being configurable.
• iMac Line up could simply get MacBook Pro options with thinner chassis, maybe slightly higher clocks, thus, Apple talking about saving the planet by reducing the power consumption while keeping the performance.

 

[hobowankenobi]

They could still independently vary the GPU and CPU performance, by adjusting the number of cores for each and/or independently varying their clock speeds. Though this doesn't necessarily mean they will

This seems possible. I could see under/overclocking based on market segment criteria such as heat, space (primarily cooling requirements), and battery run time.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I find it odd that they don't do this with their phones TBH. To me, there's not enough difference between the Pro and non-Pro models, and a better CPU would certainly be a selling point to the Pro market. The A13 is already crazy powerful, so they could have introduced a B13 chip to put in the iPhone 11 and SE, and use the A13 in the iPhone 11 Pro models. If their A13 chip is already so much better than the competition, I feel they have the headroom to do this. But maybe as you said it just not worth it.

I think the simplicity is better for iPhone customers and it makes buying far easier than buying a computer. The main choices are always “what model (regular or pro, so maybe more -what screen size?-’, “what color”, “what cellular hardware”, and “how much storage”. In addition, since their goal is a certain BASE speed for each range, that means anything faster than X can be used. That’s a better yield than binning for speed, then not having enough of the base speed for those buyers, I can see how it’d get more complicated than it’s worth for a chip company that’s only making chips for their own devices.

Of course, the downside is that right now, someone out there could have, in their hands, an iPhone processor with the POTENTIAL of running stable at 4 GHz that Apple has clocked to the standard frequency.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I think we would see minimal fragmentation within the same product configuration:

​

	iPad Air	iPad Pro	MacBook Air	MacBook Pro 14"	MacBook Pro 16"
CPU	2P + 4E	4P + 4E	4P + 4E	8P + 4E	8P + 4E
GPU	4-Core	8-Core	8-Core	16-Core	24-Core
RAM	4 GB	8 GB (Hopefully)	8 GB / 16 GB	16 GB / 32 GB	16 GB / 32 GB / ...
Authentication	TouchID	FaceID	TouchID	FaceID	FaceID

Therefore:

• MacBook Air would basically have the iPad Pro SOC so that the device could be fanless as it should be, which would already be a performance level the current model cannot compare to.
• 14" & 16" MacBook Pro would have similar CPU performance with 16" having higher GPU option, thus providing small device option for those who do not need higher graphical performance.
• Assuming iPad Pro is already comparable to the likes of MacBook Pro 16", MacBook Pro with 8P+4E CPU will have no trouble providing higher performance than the current model. Graphics is still a mystery, though.
• I assumed Neural Engine would have the same number of cores across the same architecture. If it could be higher for higher end SOC, nobody's gonna say no, of course.
• I think the configuration option for each product would be much simpler to the point of only RAM & SSD being configurable.
• iMac Line up could simply get MacBook Pro options with thinner chassis, maybe slightly higher clocks, thus, Apple talking about saving the planet by reducing the power consumption while keeping the performance.

Generally in agreement, but, (and this is wishful thinking, certainly ) if we look at the iPad Pro for clues, we see that both the small and large 2020 iPad Pro’s got the same processor with the same graphical capabilities, same RAM and same storage options. The reason customers would pick one over the other is size. So, I think it might be possible that the MacBook Pro 14 and 16 could have the same CPU/GPU option as well. This would mean either the 16 inherits the 14’s 16 core or, even cooler, the 14 would inherit the 16’s 24 core.

In other words, in my brain view, the only difference between MBP’s would be the size, I think even the port options would be the same.

 

[jazz1]

I think this is a very interesting question/observations. With the Intel chips I've seen a lot of commentary about heat throttling vs. ordering higher end Intel chips (particularly for the Mac-Mini and laptops). Meaning with heat throttling the difference between some of the chips makes little difference once the heat throttling begins.

In some of the reviews/discussionse I've read that jumping from an i5 to an i7, for instance, doesn't do much due to heat throttling. If that is true, I hope heat throttling is minimized in the new ARM Macs. Of course I suppose it could be a similar restriction, as I'm guessing heat will still be relative in comparison to the low to high end ARM chips.

I have no tech. background, so forgive this British literature major (of many years ago) if I've made a superfluous observation "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; Whatever the outcome I'm up for an ARM Mac!

 

[leman]

But yes my comments above were actually about binning (turning off cores and/or lowering clock speeds) but I still don't see them creating the 5 different tiers we see today with intel (i3, i5, i7, i9, Xeon) and then within those having different levels of performance and TDP ratings. Maybe its much easier than It sounds.

The performance tiers are mostly a byproduct of binning. Intel lineup might be a bit of a mess at a moment, but there are still only 4 different Intel chips currently used across all MacBook Pros. For example the i5 and i7 in the 2-port 13" version are binned versions of the same die, i5 and i7 in the 4-port 13" version are binned versions of the same die, and the both i9 models in the 16" are binned versions of the same die.

Apple will definitely need to make multiple chips, they can't really use the same chip in the iPhone and the higher-end MacBook Pro. Binning (and offering multiple performance options) would help them to maximize profits and reuse chips across different devices. E.g. 13" MBP and iPad Pro could share the same A--X/Z variant, but the MBP would get chips capable of higher frequencies.

 

[theorist9]

The end goal may not be to increase market share, but, instead to increase the profits they make off of an ever stagnant or shrinking marketshare. Not paying the licensing for Intel’s processor/motherboard designs will likely save a LOT of money. If it sells, they’re making a profit. If it doesn’t, then it means folks are moving more towards iPad-like devices, which they also make, so no big loss.

I don’t think Apple will offer a CPU at all levels Intel does (they don’t currently build systems that use ALL of Intel’s processor range). Apple doesn’t have to be competitive with PC vendors at all. Like the iPhone/iPad, they will only have to be competitive against whatever prior systems have been shipped. Apple realizes that, regardless of the hardware, their OS is the real differentiating factor. Those who want macOS will have no stable supported option other than buying a system made by Apple, regardless of how fast Intel’s current chips are.

Of course, most of Apple's current Mac customers are people like me, who are going to stay with Mac regardless, because they strongly prefer MacOS over Windows and the various Linux offerings.

Having said that, Apple still has to compete in the general PC market, particularly when it comes to first-time buyers (like students). [Or perhaps I should say first-time *choosers*, since while they may be making the choice of what computer would be most suitable for themselves, it may be their parents that are paying for it.] If it didn't, then Apple wouldn't get its next generation of customers.

 

[Jorbanead]

14" & 16" MacBook Pro would have similar CPU performance with 16" having higher GPU option, thus providing small device option for those who do not need higher graphical performance.

Totally agree with you on this one. One of the biggest issues I have with the MBP lineup is that you have to choose between a smaller size or more power. I personally would love a 14” MBP that has the same CPU power as the 16”. Maybe battery life won’t be quite as good as the 16”, but that’s fine with me. I have a desktop for most of my work, but I do want a powerful, small, portable notebook that can still pack a punch when I’m on the road.

It also makes sense to mimic both the iPad Pro and iPhone pro lineups where they have two sizes for each, but the internal specs are essentially the same minus battery life.

 

[leman]

14" & 16" MacBook Pro would have similar CPU performance with 16" having higher GPU option, thus providing small device option for those who do not need higher graphical performance.

I really like your table, but I don't think you are right about this particular point. Apple has traditionally offered beefier CPUs in the larger MBP, and I don't think they will stop doing it now. In particular, the system performance of the 13" model was limited to 30Watts and that of the 15-16' model was limited to around 70-80 watts. I find it unlikely that Apple will choose to downgrade the TDP of the larger model.

 

[thenewperson]

I find it unlikely that Apple will choose to downgrade the TDP of the larger model

Really? Not that their contextless chart proves much, but it did lean toward lower power usage across the board. I can't imagine they'd like to keep the 16" at 70-80W if they can get better performance at lower power (and I think they can). You think they'd still keep it at 70-80W max?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Of course, most of Apple's current Mac customers are people like me, who are going to stay with Mac regardless, because they strongly prefer MacOS over Windows and the various Linux offerings.

Having said that, Apple still has to compete in the general PC market, particularly when it comes to first-time buyers (like students).

Oh, they’re competing, but they’re not competing on performance nor price, which is to their benefit. When you consider that around half or just over half of all Macs sold in recent years have been to people that have not owned Macs before, that’s a significant number of people that either prefer macOS regardless of price OR even the lowest end Mac is more performance than they’ll ever need. Adobe Photoshop having better performance on a $499 PC than on a $999 Apple Silicon Mac doesn’t matter... if they want macOS, there’s only one option.

And, a very large number of consumers already have several Apple logo bearing devices on their person which is a MUCH higher likelihood of altering their decisions than a PC scoring 40% better in a benchmark.

I find it unlikely that Apple will choose to downgrade the TDP of the larger model.

I’m guessing it’ll be downgraded primarily because Apple will redefine what the power levels CAN be on a performant laptop. Apple’s not going to use 80 watts or 70 watts if they don’t need to. Heck, they’re getting near i9 performance at less than 20 watts! So, if the MBP comes in at 30 watts, it’s won’t be because they made compromises, it’s because that’s all that’s needed for now. The same applies for the future Apple Silicon MacPro. Folks toss around multiple hundred watts ONLY because that’s what’s expected from the world as we know it now. If Apple can provide near Xeon performance in 90 watts, then that’s what they’ll do.

 

[deconstruct60]

...

I.e., there is only one CPU/GPU option in the 11" iPad Pro, only one in the 10.5" iPad Pro, only one in the iPad, only one in each iPhone form factor (indeed, all current iPhone form factors have identical processors), and so on*.

By contrast, its Intel Macs offer the following number of CPU and GPU choices within each form factor (not necessarily independently) (given as CPU; GPU):
Mini (3; 1), MBA (3; 1), 13" MBP (4; 2), 16" MBP (3; 4), 21.5" iMac (5; 4), 27" iMac (5; 4), Mac Pro(5; 8).

On the GPU metrics there, to a large extent you are comparing apples to oranges. That is about as much about integrated graphics versus discrete graphics as it is about offerings as choices from the CPU package.

Many of those one's in the GPU metric is all about lack of discrete graphics options. And for the greater than ones almost in every case you are undercounting the GPUs present (off by one ). The iPad/iPhone systems have no possible discrete GPU options.

All Apple has to do is discrete GPU and drivers for those discrete GPUs and it will be relatively easy to bump the that counts metrics back into line with the current Macs. There are other threads that expound on the belief that 3rd party GPUs are going forever. (Probably not true over the long term. Especially, in the Mac Pro & iMac pro zone. )

Yes, it may just be a matter of changing clock speed, and turning on extra cores; but each time that's done, extensive additional testing is required. Further, Apple may not have as much variation available in its architectures to offer so many choices. E.g., will Apple have (or does it even want to have) the AS equivalent of i3, i5, i7, and i9?

Changing clock speed isn't going to be relatively expensive additional testing. Still have to test for soft defects of the dies that meet standards they are suppose to run at. Testing at a base targeted speed and then another incrementally over/under speeds shouldn't be a major issue besides just incrementally more time.

If testing allows identifying and turning off a broken core then core count really isn't that more than incremental testing. Throw back into the clock test pile with one or more broken/paired cores turned off. As long as turning off cores is built into the design not a huge leap there. [ Apple at least toyed with that with the A12X and A12Z. Same die... different yield curves on the process to that could tap dance around a very narrow range of defects. Vast majority of A12X probably shipped with an entirely working GPU core just turned off. ]

A large factor will be just how much money Apple leaves on the table for not winking in 2-4 more cores. If they can slap another $200-300 dollars on the price of the system, is Apple really going to pass those fatter margins up? If bin testing cost another $60 and they can get $200, that is $140 they are walking away from per machine. ( 1.5M units and that is walking away from $210M. )
[ apple charges around $200-300 for processor upgrade on Mini. $100-250 upgrades for MBA , $200-300 upgrades for MBP 13". Intel pricing isn't driving most of that. apple is only giving fractional credit for standard processor. So a real question us just how hooked Apple is on BTO margin 'crack candy'? Pretty good chance that they are addicted on at least a subset of the Mac product line up. ]


the Intel i3 through the i9 is largely not the same dies. It isn't just a matter of turning off cores . It is creating different masks for the fabrication process , pragmatically changing the defect rate . There are different masks and even whole feature set differences. the i9 tend to have a high overlap with the Xeon E5/W 2-3000 class which is a whole different die family than what goes in a i3 (or Xeon E3 now W 1000 ) .

For example CoffeLake dies
"...
Coffee Lake desktop and mobile come in 4, 6, and 8 cores. Each variant has its own die. The major components of the die are: ... "
https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/microarchitectures/coffee_lake#Die
[ Intel still gets to high volume production on each of these dies because while a single system vendor (e.g., Apple) may sell a silver of each of these three variants, the aggregate sales over double digit of system vendors still amounts to more of these single dies than to aggregate Mac product sales Apple has less than 10% of the market. Just rough "back of the envelope' if you split the 90% up three ways have 30% chunks. Roughly 3x what Apple is consuming. Selling to just one limited market size vendor it probably wouldn't make sense for Intel to do this. ]


is Apple going to do three dies for a Mac Mini or MBP 16"? Probably not. That's where going to get into overhead expenses zone and fixed costs overhead zone that don't make sense for Apple's relatively low volume CPU packages.
Are they going to use one die for the whole Mac product line? Extremely likely not. Is each Mac going to get their own die? IMHO, probably not, but a couple might. (probably a major factor is volume. The lowest unit volume Macs probably has a much higher likelihood of having to share with some other product in the line up. )

One option that may go away is that of independently selecting GPU memory (as can be done now for the Radeon Pro 5500M in the the 16" MBP), since (IIUC) the AS chips will use unified CPU/GPU memory.

Again that is far more so just recycling the discrete GPU issue. [ And for integrated GPU Macs the varying system's RAM size pragmatically means varying GPU RAM size also. That is another factor where the variablity of system meory sizes on the iPad/iPhones is far, far less than in the Mac world. If there are Mac SoC with on package lockin RAM packages then that is a big factor on the iGPU side. ]

 

[deconstruct60]

I assume that apples goal is to increase market share, thus they have to be competitive with PC vendors.

Very probably not. Apple's Quarterly reporting to analysts has dropped talking about unit numbers of products sold and more so focused on margins.

It is also a very effective antitrust defense to say that their product (Mac) has less than 10% ( meaning 90% of users buy something else. That makes the "lack of choice" argument just whither on the vine. Almost everybody does not buy the product. That isn't a monopoly at all. ).

Apple just wants a decent fraction of the highly profitable part of the market. Not a bigger chunk of the whole market. Where more CPU BTO options gets them fatter margins they may make a go at that ( depending upon if have to make up volume shrink on fatter margins. ).

But Apple is not going to be doing this in order to engage in "monkey see, monkey do" copying of marketing strategies in the overall PC market. Apple isn't trying to "keep up with the Jones", most of the other vendors are off trying to sell everything to everybody. Apple isn't trying to do that at all (before or after the unit reporting strategy change. Haven't been since Jobs came back which makes it mulitple decades ago. ) .

 

[deconstruct60]

It’s the other way around The reason why we have so many options with PC CPUs is because it’s a good way for a manufacturer to maximize their revenue. Most different CPU models are the same exact chip, they are just sorted and sold at different performance tiers. This is called binning. The reason behind it that even chips produced as part of the same wafer will have some small differences. A small percentage of chips that can reach higher clocks will be sold at a high premium, while the bulk will be sold as cut down models, often with parts of the chip disabled.

While Binning is used. It isn't as pervasive as you are implying across broad CPU product line ups . Post 23 above already linked a link that Coffee lake had 3 dies just in the i3-i7 space. The Xeon and much of the HEDT/i9 range of the Intel line up.

"..This strategy from Intel is derived from what they call internally as their ‘LCC’ core, standing for ‘low core count’. The enterprise line from Intel has three designs for their silicon – a low core count, a high core count, and an extreme core count: LCC, HCC, and XCC respectively. All the processors in the enterprise line are typically made from these three silicon maps: a 10-core LCC silicon die, for example, can have two cores disabled to be an 8-core. Or a 22-core XCC die can have all but four cores disabled, but still retain access to all the L3 cache, to have an XCC processor that has a massive cache structure. For the consumer HEDT platform, such as Haswell-E and Broadwell-E, the processors made public were all derived from the LCC silicon. "

Intel Announces Skylake-X: Bringing 18-Core HCC Silicon to Consumers for $1999

www.anandtech.com

Again three different dies.

When the core count range gets past 2-4 on a non relatively large die usually get a shift in die/mask. Smaller dies pragmatically get better yield for a given fab process defect rate. ( some defects are going to land where can tie-toe around them with binning because the whole chip isn't redundant elements. ) .


If the volume you need to make the 4 , 6 , 8 core chips are radically different then can actually get cost savings if each group end up being "high volume". 4 die design just takes way less wafers than 8 to get to very high volumes. Higher volumes is a big issue to getting to lower costs.

Binning does allow to 'goose' the high volume you already have a bit more and perhaps throw in some extra market segmentation. But it isn't the panacea to profits.


AMD's APU/Mobile chips/dies are not the same as their desktop dies.