18 Dec
2009
18 Dec
'09
11:07 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 12:57 PM, dwight elvey <dkelvey at hotmail.com> wrote:
Towards the end, 2508s were in fact
perfectly good 2716s that were relabeled as 2508s.
It was actually more expensive to have a different flow process for
the 2508s than to just test them all as good 2716s.
Intel did this sort of thing with pentium 2s (or was it celerons?) at one
point. iirc, the stepping number was SL2W8. It turned out that the
"slower" pentium 2s were just relabeled copies of the faster one. It made
the overclockers specifically ask for that stepping number. I guess their
yields were too good for the marketing department.
brian