Originally Posted by AK-47
fixed and that's not relevant
It is relevant, because I think putting two dual cores (one with a disabled core) on one chip is a lot harder than just disabling one core of a true quad core CPU.
And not related to above, maybe Intel had much higher yields of good CPUs than AMD did so it didn't need to incorporate crippled CPUs into its product line?
Maybe when one of Intel's cores was bad they couldn't get the CPU to work at all without being very unstable, perhaps due to the different architectures?
I think if it was as easy as it was for AMD Intel might have decided to do this. Or if they thought they'd gain something from it. But turns out they were focused on producing true quads with the i7.
I also think it might have been something to do with brand image and Intel wanting their CPUs to be seen as the best and not prone to faults. The fact that AMD came out and effectively said "we've got so many problems with the current manufacturing process, that we're going to introduce a whole new range of rejected CPUs that don't work as quad cores."
I think for some people, the thought that you're buying a faulty reject CPU put them off slightly...