gnupic: Re: [gnupic] OT - cynical speculation
Subject:
Re: [gnupic] OT - cynical speculation
From:
"Paul B. Webster VK2BZC" ####@####.####
Date:
9 Jul 2005 11:41:48 +0100
Message-Id: <1120905693.4128.493.camel@dads.W-med>
The conspiracy theorem again?
Well, this concept had considerable validity in respect of certain CPU
chips - as you would know - but it's only *slightly* likely in respect
of PICs. The rationale for the '486 was that the co-processor was as
complex as the CPU proper, taking up half of the die area, and this
permitted "recovery" of 50% of the faulty chips - one with a faulty CPU
but functional co-processor was *not* salvageable.
In regard to the PICs, I suspect the chip yield is so high that such a
scheme has no benefit. And this is a very different end of the market -
making *cheap* chips rather than *premium* ones, such that aspects such
as packaging and inventory come into play. For the wholesale price
difference between say, a 12C508 and a 12C509, and considering that the
volume market is quite likely in the lower-spec chip, it would hardly be
worth charging a premium for the higher-spec chip to have a split
production line (even the "tail end") and inventory.
I think then, that you have to assume, the *only* reason to do this,
is if the lower-spec chip *really does* save - and substantially - on
silicon (die yield).
I point out that this market (substantially automotive, might I
presume?) is *far* more competitive than the minicomputer market in the
'80s (wouldn't have been DEC, surely?).
--
Cheers,
Paul B.
