[leetcrew]

> The only way this would apply would be through shared overhead, which given that we are talking about different product lines often tends to be minimal.

this is very much not minimal in the CPU business though. intel's entire line of (consumer) desktop parts is different bins of the same chip. they wouldn't be able to offer an i3 for $120 if they weren't also selling i9s for $500. and they probably couldn't sell consumer parts for <$1000 at all if they couldn't sell xeon parts with the same architecture for thousands of dollars.

[ac29]

> intel's entire line of (consumer) desktop parts is different bins of the same chip.

Is that true? Intel's 14nm yields are high enough that it wouldnt really make sense for the dirt cheap quad core processors to secretly be 8 core processors with half the cores (and cache) disabled.

[leetcrew]

I think for the current gen parts, the quad core parts are actually six core dies with two disabled. the overall point stands though.