Timeline for Is it possible to make illegal clones of an Intel Core i7?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 1, 2013 at 12:26 | vote | accept | Federico Russo | ||
| Nov 18, 2012 at 13:44 | comment | added | Roman Starkov | The SparkFun adventure you linked is epic and is well worth a read. Thanks! | |
| Nov 13, 2012 at 13:14 | comment | added | AProgrammer | @KitScuzz, IBM would be the first candidate and AFAIK, the latest POWER chips are still on 32nm. | |
| Nov 13, 2012 at 2:21 | comment | added | Kit Scuzz | @JonathanAmend : Ah! I stand corrected, though I'm still curious about any of them producing chips of a similar complexity. I know that a lot of fabrication companies will get to a small nm process and simply produce flash wafers, and I'd be curious if TSMC or CNSE (or any of the 20nm fabs) are actually producing processors. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 18:09 | comment | added | Jonathan Amend | I checked here before I posted: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_fabrication_plants (also I didn't mention AMD). | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 17:45 | history | edited | Kit Scuzz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Modified to include the fact that they could just be stolen chips from Olin's comment
|
| Nov 12, 2012 at 17:35 | comment | added | Kit Scuzz | @AndrejaKo : It depends on a number of factors. For example, not performing to within the temperature specs or up to the required clock speed can't be fixed by microcode updates. Really, the types of problems which can be solved by microcode updates are pretty limited, because they will affect performance negatively, and require that the underlying hardware still works near-perfectly. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 17:28 | comment | added | Kit Scuzz | @FedericoRusso : I'm pretty sure the real numbers are closely guarded secrets until several years after the fact, but in general from what I understand, yields can start out as low as 50% for a new process and get better with time. See this article for Intel's possible i7 issues, and this one for an old article about low production yields. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 17:22 | comment | added | Kit Scuzz | @TC1 and Jonathan Amend: AMD may come close, but they're not a fabrication company anymore (they design and then get other companies to fabricate for them). I don't know if there are companies making non-flash 22nm chips, as AMD's most recent chips are still 32nm. See the wikipedia entry | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 15:42 | comment | added | Jonathan Amend | There are a few other companies that can compete with Intel's manufacturing process, including Samsung and the independent "for hire" TSMC (though probably not with the same capacity as Intel), but to actually clone a Core i7 would require some serious industrial espionage. Also, I would guess that the design of the Core i7 and its manufacturing process are very closely related, to the point that it would be practically impossible to make the same chip with another foundry's process. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 13:56 | comment | added | Olin Lathrop | these are either defective core i7s, or completely fake or stolen. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 13:33 | comment | added | MSalters | @FedericoRusso: I've seen wafers where the yield was <10%, at which point they had just discarded the entire wafer. At a certain point, you're going to assume a common root cause and not trust any die from that wafer. I don't know at which point Intel throws out entire wafers, but it could certainly explain part of that 40% loss. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 12:53 | comment | added | AndrejaKo | Isn't the standard procedure for minor hardware bugs to fix them in the microcode by distributing updates to OS and firmware vendors? | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 12:47 | comment | added | TC1 |
I don't think there's another entity with the ability to produce 22nm parts as complex as Intel's CPUs right now I'd say AMD comes close... :)
|
|
| Nov 12, 2012 at 12:22 | comment | added | Federico Russo | 60% yield seems extremely low to me, that's not even 2 sigma. Does anyone have accurate figures on this? | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 10:17 | history | edited | Kit Scuzz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added a quick clarification of the name of a counterfitting method
|
| Nov 12, 2012 at 9:57 | history | answered | Kit Scuzz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |