Faulty Chips Might Just be 'Good Enough' 342
Ritalin16 writes "According to a Wired.com article, 'Consumer electronics could be a whole lot cheaper if chip manufacturers stopped throwing out all their defective chips, according to a researcher at the University of Southern California. Chip manufacturing is currently very wasteful. Between 20 percent and 50 percent of a manufacturer's total production is tossed or recycled because the chips contain minor imperfections. Defects in just one of the millions of tiny gates on a processor can doom the entire chip. But USC professor Melvin Breuer believes the imperfections are often too small for humans to even notice, especially when the chips are to be used in video and sound applications.' But just in case you do end up with a dead chip, here is a guide to making a CPU keychain."
Already being done... (Score:5, Interesting)
Micron has done this for years with RAM (Score:5, Interesting)
When I worked there it was called the "Partials Division". This group invented the "audio ram" market. They have a wide ranging sorting and grading process. It is called "SpecTek" I believe now. I sometimes see low end memory modules with SpecTek Ram.
12 years ago, I was production technician in a Surface Mount Assembly division that shared a building with Partials. We used to assemble memory modules and even video cards that used "PC grade" chips from the partials group. Everyone said they were good enough, but personally I have always steered clear of them.
The last year I was at Micron, we had a lot of discussions with NEC, Intel and some Russian Fabs to provide the same services to them. We tested a couple million chips from these companies in tests. Never did hear what the end result was.
the FUTURE (Score:5, Interesting)
Not a good idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, so maybe for non-critical equipment in the "use-and-throwaway" category. But this will not bring us cheaper hardware, just less functional hardware. Those chips are _literally_ going nowhere slow.
If you've ever had to debug something that turned out to be flaky hardware, you KNOW it's a PITA. If anything, awareness should be increased when it comes to the really cheap brands. They aren't always very stable, but people sometimes go for the cheapest RAM anyway, and then complain to ME when it doesn't work. There actually is some connection between what you pay, and what you get. Argh.
I'm done rambling now, thanks for waiting..
OK until code is mixed with the data (Score:5, Interesting)
Something tells me that the manufacturers that use semi-defective chips are going to lose all their savings on product returns, warranty costs, and technical support. Given the low cost of most consumer electronics chips and the high cost of service labor, I doubt they will want the hassles of unreliable products.
Not quite (Score:5, Interesting)
What has always had my curiousity for why it has not been seemly worked on is "reversable" chips. There are essentially two sets for every mechanism and the system toggles back and forth. The discharge of the old system is used to drive the new mechanism; thus, a lot of wasted discharge is conserved for reuse. Reversable chips are reported to generate far, far less heat. I have heard that Intel and others know about this, but it is simply a better immediate investment because consumers are happy paying for the current line of toasters.
Re:the FUTURE (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is where you can make out like a bandit. Buy up a bunch of the revision which is hackable. Then, hack the ones you can and sell them as such. Then wait until supplies run out, and sell the ones where the hack failed on ebay. People will be on the lookout for the hackable version, and will pay a premium to get it from you. Oh, don't mention that you already tried it and it didn't work. They get exactly what they paid for, so this isn't dishonest in the least.
Actually, this happened to me. I wanted the Radeon 9500 with the ram in an L configuration, because you can soft-upgrade it to a 9700 most of the time. I bought one on ebay since there were no more on newegg. I specifically asked the guy "L shaped ram" he says yes. I get it and everything seems fine. UNTIL I lift off the heatsink. There, instead of a thermal pad or tape, is silver thermal compound. Clearly he had lifted the heatsink, and then put it back on when the hack failed. At least he was nice enough not to leave the hosed heat-tape on there. I ended up with a good upgrade for about what the newer revision would have cost anyway.
Now, in the next revision they just update the manufacturing to make it impossible to do the hack, because it is a nightmare for them to support all the half busted products that have been 'fixed' (even if they just say no, receiving and testing those products for the hack, and even phone support, costs like a bastard), and it cuts into the sales of the top tier products, where they make the highest margin. For chip companies this is as easy as dinging the faulty side of the chip before they assemble it completely, or putting some sort of "fuse" on the silicon itself, which they then burn out if that side is faulty. There is no way to take apart a chip to work directly on the silicon, and if there is and someone actually does it it will be a "Prove you can" since the equipment will be in the millions. (I can imagine a physics grad student with access to the machinery if they are doing superconductor or quantum computing research)
Stories (Score:3, Interesting)
i486 SX vs DX? (Score:5, Interesting)
The other version was that the coprocessor had the highest failure rating for the chip fabrication. So on these chips with a failed copressor, the coprocessor was turned off, but the rest of the chip was still usable.
I vaguely remember this whole practice was described in a computer book my friend was reading, because I remember a joke the author told about computer salesmen. Unfortunately I only remember the joke, not the useful info from that book. (This joke comes from the days of small computer shops)
Q : What's the difference between a computer salesman and a car salesman?
A : The car salesman knows when he's ripping you off.
Re:Already being done... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:i486 SX vs DX? (Score:4, Interesting)
Manufacturer's do the same trick with speed grades. That's the principle reason why CPU's can often be overclocked beyond their rated maximum.
A more interesting thing about the 486SX/486SX is that the 487SX was, in fact, a complete 486. When plugged into the FPU socket, it disabled the 486SX entirely.
Intel claimed that the disabled FPU in the 486SX was only a temporary thing. Eventually, there would be a unique die for the 486SX and it wouldn't have an FPU at all. I kind of doubt this ever happened. The 486SX wasn't very popular.
Re:the FUTURE (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not quite (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes and no, depends how your operating the transistors. For example, ECL (Emitter-Coupled Logic) runs quite fast and doesn't saturate the transistors, contrasted to what TTL does. By not saturating they're able to switch states quite quickly, but they dissipate power like crazy. As of 7 years ago you could easily find ECL lines (For example this AND/NAND chip [onsemi.com] can work at least to 3 GHz. This is a discrete component, so you can do logic this fast onto the pins.
But the trick is to exploit Shannon's theorem [wikipedia.org], and possibly work in base 4, base 16, or similar. You obviously need a higher SNR, but you won't need to clock as fast. Of course designing for base 2 is hard enough, base-4 components would be really difficult, and you'd have to come up with quite clever designs.
More interestingly it might be possible to have each 'bit' ride on a Microwave or higher carrier frequency, with the digital information modulating it. This way you could employ dense wave-division multiplexing, like in communications, to have multiple bits riding on each carrier line. Of course you'd need to design microscopic receivers/transmitters/processors to work on these signals, but it might be possible. The trick would be keeping the CPU size small, such that the registers/ALU/cache can all communicate with each other at a decently fast clocking rate (obviously limited by speed of light).
Re:i486 SX vs DX? (Score:4, Interesting)
It did. By late 1991 the 486SX die was completely different with the co-processor removed.
Re:Sounds like Radio Shack parts (Score:4, Interesting)
SB
Fuck, no. (Score:2, Interesting)
And all manufacturing processes fail from time to time, microchip manufacturing is no exception. In a lot of 1000 chips, you might get 1 or 2 where the silicon wafer wasn't right to begin with, or one of the layers was a millionth of an inch too thick, and that causes a problem where the chip should have twiddled a '1' when it really twiddled a '0'. These are big problems, and could mean the difference between your heart monitor working or not working. The goal of testing is to find these problems early and get rid of them before it reaches a customer, not to sell defective shit to them anyway just to make another buck.
P3 vs. Celeron too! (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Already commonplace with RAM chips (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sounds like Radio Shack parts (Score:1, Interesting)
If I could wait for mail order then there wouldn't be a need for radioshack. What I'd like is radioshack with a larger selection of better stuff.
Umm (Score:2, Interesting)
Sinclair did this (Score:5, Interesting)
Old Computers Museum [old-computers.com]
quote: "To keep the prices down Sinclair used faulty 64K chips (internally 2 X 32K). All the chips in the 32K bank of RAM had to have the same half of the 64K chips working. A link was fitted on the pcb in order to choose the first half or the second half."
Remember, many of the best ideas have already been used.
Re:Well there's a big difference (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Already commonplace with RAM chips (Score:2, Interesting)
Adding redundancy for high performance chips would require either duplicate cores, one of which would be turned off, or increasing the size of a single core. Increasing the size of the core, however would lead to lower clock speeds and lower performance to let impulses propagate over the extra space.
I would guess, though that turning one of two cores off if it fails a test and selling the cpu as a single core chip will be standard practice when dual core chips go into mass production, much the same way that chips that fail at higher clock speeds are sold as slower chips.
Before you say it, I know some companies mass produce dual core chips now, but I'm thinking mass as in x86 scale, not Power scale.
Re:FOOF (Score:4, Interesting)