I see that all the options below the best Pro and Max are definitely going to be subpar binned chips. But how much waste do you think Apple is creating with these massive chips. Silicon is a pretty constrained resource and Apples chips are designed with basically everything in one package. Yields on working Pro and Max chips must be very good or they are hiding lots of waste from public view.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How wasteful is Apples M1 Pro and Max Strategy?
- Thread starter jefhai
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Probably less wasteful than the excess power draw of every other chip/iGPU/RAM package on the market today.
How is binning chips wasteful?? It is the same as grading cattle. The ones that people are willing to pay a premium for are sold to people for a premium. The rest gets sold to people for the market rate. Binning chips is a way to reduce waste, not create it.
I'm sure they wouldn't have started mass production on these chips until they got decent yields.
And the ones that have defective cores just become binned for the lower tiers. That part is anti-wasteful.
And the ones that have defective cores just become binned for the lower tiers. That part is anti-wasteful.
I think the chip binning theory is flawed. They are built to have a specific number of working functional parts. To believe they are binned is preposterous, as you would have to think that of the 57 billion transistors in the chip, a very specific few cores don't work, but everything else works perfectly.
I do not understand what you mean by wasteful? If the yields are good enough die size is really a mute point. Apple wouldn't be making these huge chips if the yields weren't good enough.
Every chip ever made is binned, that's how the industry functions. Saying they are subpar binned chips is such an odd thing to say. If they meet the requirements Apple set out, how is that subpar?
I admit I'm surprised the N5P process is mature enough for this size of chip to be economically viable at this scale but then again N5 and N5P have more EUV steps than N7/N7P which cuts down on the number of patterning steps which actually improves yields, even although it is a smaller process.
This isn't wasteful, it's an engineering tour de force from Apple, TSMC, ASML, Carl Zeiss etc.
Every chip ever made is binned, that's how the industry functions. Saying they are subpar binned chips is such an odd thing to say. If they meet the requirements Apple set out, how is that subpar?
I admit I'm surprised the N5P process is mature enough for this size of chip to be economically viable at this scale but then again N5 and N5P have more EUV steps than N7/N7P which cuts down on the number of patterning steps which actually improves yields, even although it is a smaller process.
This isn't wasteful, it's an engineering tour de force from Apple, TSMC, ASML, Carl Zeiss etc.
All of these companies hide their waste from public view because they all know it's bad optics. You should see the drone shots from the gated off area behind Tesla's Fremont factory, full of waste and garbage dumped everywhere with seemingly zero concern for environmental impact.
It's funny how even companies that rely on climate concern as the central marketing tenant of their business are some of the biggest polluters.
No one said binning was wasteful. But if a chip can’t be binned that is waste. How much is that is speculative but is Apples strategy of these massive chips causing a lot of waste is my question
Binning chips has gone on for a long time. Under performing / non-functional cores are disabled.
Back many years ago it was done in software/firmware and you could actually reenable the bad the cores on some (AMD I believe) chips.
These days it’s not possible, but binning certainly happens
Oh I’m pretty certain a percentage of their chips are non functional/ going to the garbage bin. Question is how many and what’s the cost. Apple will build these massive chips at a 10% total failure rate or what? And what about the Mac Pro. It unified memory going to work for that?
I think these massive SoCs leads to some serious waste at scale. 10% total failure rate would mean millions of chips wasted. No recycling for CPU really.. maybe some gold
Long before the memory is added the processors are tested and binned. Yields after adding the memory are extremely high.
What are you talking about?
Silicon is not a "constrained resource":
And how "massive" do you think these things are? It's wasteful to run a 5nm process on a low density chip-- there's a yield issue, certainly, and given everything we know about Apple's hardware operations they aren't stupid when it comes to operating efficiency, but if you make the active part of the device too small you aren't taking good advantage of the process technology.
"How wasteful is Apple's new technology?"
1. very wasteful
2. somewhat wasteful if they use what would be scrap
3. I don't know but let's assume it's wasteful
Classic push poll...
In the vernacular of computers, Silicon refers to chip wafers.. And yes silicon chip wafers is a constrained resource. Have you been living under a rock? Furthermore, the chips aren’t small. The M1 Max is one of the largest chips on the market. And if there is waste, i.e. non-binnable failure, that’s a lot of wafer lost. If that number is 10% total waste that’s millions of potential devices not realized by the consumed capacityWhat are you talking about?
Silicon is not a "constrained resource":
And how "massive" do you think these things are? It's wasteful to run a 5nm process on a low density chip-- there's a yield issue, certainly, and given everything we know about Apple's hardware operations they aren't stupid when it comes to operating efficiency, but if you make the active part of the device too small you aren't taking good advantage of the process technology.
"How wasteful is Apple's new technology?"
1. very wasteful
2. somewhat wasteful if they use what would be scrap
3. I don't know but let's assume it's wasteful
Classic push poll...
Wasteful relative to what?
Nobody is suggesting that zero waste is created this way, but if you want to insinuate that Apple is deliberately being wasteful here, there at least needs to be an alternative to be compared to, no?
Wasteful compared to a more traditional approach to computer construction, meaning separate RAM, CPU, GPU and I/O controller vs Apple single massive silicon chip. I believe the RAM might be separate chips they add to the M1 package. But still if the entire chip is a loss because some issue you can’t fix by turning off a CPU/GPU core you lose the entire chip. That is the waste I’m talking about. Apple strategy to create a massive single chip leads to greater overall waste.
The M1 Max die size is 432mm² and the AMD Threadripper is 75mm². The AMD Epyc is 416mm²
That’s small compared to many Nvidia GPUs. I guess I just don’t get your point— and why you’re using such loaded language to essentially ask what their yield might be. Or why anyone should care enough to take a poll that only allows one point of view. Or why you would think a nickel sized chunk of refined sand couldn’t be ground back into sand and reused. Or what the harm would be if it wasn’t. Or where you think the gold is being recycled from.
The point of the discussion is pretty clear. Maybe not to you because you think waste is material and not time / capacity consumed at TSMC. We’re still in a chip shortage and Apple has gone down the worst approach for chip yields. Nvidia for one doesn’t share the same chip manufacturer as Apple and GPU only chips are easier to bin than Apple single monster chip. It’s also not small compared to Nvidias chips.. the beast 3090 which doesn’t sell nearly as many as Apples M1 is ~600mm² vs 432mm².