Why do graphics card designers lock shaders?

Red Hawk

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2011
3,266
169
106
I'm a bit confused by this. Why do some graphics cards have shaders on the chip turned off? It seems strange to lock a customer out of using the full power of a chip. It can't be because the shaders are inoperable, because I hear about simple bios flashes restoring their operation.
 

Skurge

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2009
5,195
1
71
I'm a bit confused by this. Why do some graphics cards have shaders on the chip turned off? It seems strange to lock a customer out of using the full power of a chip. It can't be because the shaders are inoperable, because I hear about simple bios flashes restoring their operation.

If you don't pay full price you don't get a full chip.

Can't fork out $500 for a 580, you can pay $300 for a 570 that is less of a chip.

They arent always locked though. Most chips have their shaders cut out of them. Cayman is one of those few exception like the Geforce 6800 to 6800GT and Radeon 9500pro to 9700.
 

Sylvanas

Diamond Member
Jan 20, 2004
3,752
0
0
It's cheaper.

Company X makes a high end GPU with 3 billion transistors. However of the 40% of GPUs that come out of the fab operable, perhaps 60% of those are operable at the voltage and frequency required to meet the requirements of the top end GPU. So instead of throwing away those that don't meet the requirements, shader clusters are laser cut these days and sold as lower end models with less shaders.

This means that company X can still make money from the chips that are physically not able to run with all their shader clusters enabled at the required frequency and voltage.

It's a big investment to design a GPU specifically for the midrange market as opposed to cutting down a high end one. It takes alot of capital and planning to do this but you save costs in manufacturing as a smaller GPU (in terms of die dimensions) is cheaper to manufacture than a larger one which may have low yields which you then have to laser cut. A good example of a ground up midrange GPU was the GTX 460 (GF104 wasn't it?). An example of a cut down high end GPU was a GTX 470 and 465 (GF100).
 

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,140
819
126

Red Hawk

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2011
3,266
169
106
So, the disabled shaders aren't fully operable due to manufacturing errors? I can understand how a bios flash would improve performance: the chips aren't always going to have the same amount of physically inoperable shaders. The standard bios setting would set the number of active shaders a bit below the number of actually viable shaders. But is there any risk or drawback to a bios flash?
 

Sylvanas

Diamond Member
Jan 20, 2004
3,752
0
0

You misunderstood what I said. The 460 and the 560ti are both based on the same GF104 archietecture with the ti being a revision called GF114- these are 'ground up' GPU's designed specifically for midrange performance, price point and cost. It's not a simple harvest the high end and flog it as midrange, they use physically different transistors (I assume TSMCs low leakage process for some parts of the die).

So, the disabled shaders aren't fully operable due to manufacturing errors? I can understand how a bios flash would improve performance: the chips aren't always going to have the same amount of physically inoperable shaders. The standard bios setting would set the number of active shaders a bit below the number of actually viable shaders. But is there any risk or drawback to a bios flash?

There is always risking in terms of voiding warrantys, bricking cards, using an incompatible BIOS etc. When it does work you could have a fully functional card on your hands, when it doesn't you'd have a brick. Before flashing dump the default BIOS to somewhere as a back up. If it does go all wrong you can bring it back to life by putting the brick'd card in another PC and flashing the BIOS back onto the brick'd card from there (instructions for this are on the Google).
 
Last edited:

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
The easiest way to think about it is:

1) You need different GPUs to fill specific market segments / price brackets;

2) You won't achieve 100% yields on any chip (esp. not in the beginning of the manufacturing process). Therefore, chips with lower # of working shaders/TMUs get allocated to lower status, so that the firm wouldn't have to salvage them completely (this fits well with requirement for point #1, although it can be still costly to manufacture a lower yielding 500mm^2 GPU vs. a higher yielding 250mm^2 GPU.).

Ultimately though, AMD/NV figure out a way to release smaller sized mid-range chips such as the 6870 or the GTX460 so they don't have to resell lower yielding but much larger sized HD6950 or GTX580 series to harvest them into mid-range offerings. Plus, once the yields improve over the course of the manufacturing process, you won't be able to harvest enough GPUs with non-functional units (such as AMD having to sell full-fledged HD6970 as 6950s which could be unlocked ).
 
Last edited:

Red Hawk

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2011
3,266
169
106
Well, in that last case, why not just sell them all as 6970s and knock the general 6970 price down a bit?
 

betasub

Platinum Member
Mar 22, 2006
2,677
0
0
^ Did you miss the bit about market segmentation? Plus it allows them to cover multiple price points (e.g. a high-profit/low-volume point, & and also a relatively lower-profit/higher-volume point).
 

Red Hawk

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2011
3,266
169
106
Sure, but why sell higher if you can sell lower at an acceptable profit? Seems smarter to me to just shoot for the lower price point to out-price your competition. If you're not willing to do that, why sell at a lower price at all?
 

netxzero64

Senior member
May 16, 2009
538
0
71
I'm a bit confused by this. Why do some graphics cards have shaders on the chip turned off? It seems strange to lock a customer out of using the full power of a chip. It can't be because the shaders are inoperable, because I hear about simple bios flashes restoring their operation.
Just my take, for example like the 69xx, the shaders are just locked in order for them to have a product on another price segment rather than having only 1 product which costs more..

plus they need to diversify product line ups
 

aka1nas

Diamond Member
Aug 30, 2001
4,335
1
0
Sure, but why sell higher if you can sell lower at an acceptable profit? Seems smarter to me to just shoot for the lower price point to out-price your competition. If you're not willing to do that, why sell at a lower price at all?

Some people want to spend $500 on a video card and have the best available, others want to spend $200. If you only sell a $200 video card model, you're (the manufacturer) leaving money on the table.

Binning has to occur at some point in the manufacturing life cycle, otherwise you are throwing away a non-negligible portion of your output. Only selling a model that every chip you produce can hit means that you will have a slow, uncompetitive product.

The competition operates under the same general manufacturing limitations. In addition, semiconductor manufacturing operates with enormous front-end expenses for fabs and equipment (high-end fabs cost many billions of dollars), and the high-end SKUs have nicer margins and help increase revenue. The marketing factor is also very real, as having the fastest high-end parts can often help the vendor move more lower-end parts and possibly command a price premium.
 

jvroig

Platinum Member
Nov 4, 2009
2,394
1
81
The short answer is capturing consumer surplus through market segmentation. It is not very complicated economics.

As for binning in general, it is worth remembering that it is as much affected by economic forecast as it is by manufacturing factors.

As for "why not just sell them all as fully-functional units but lower priced", this is a valid question. The answer is: the end result we want is not "maximizing units sold" but "maximizing profits". Therefore, whenever they (the company, through its financial eggheads) make a decision to segment the market (or consolidate some segments, as the case may be), that means their eggheads already ran through the projections, and their course of action is what their projections (using operations research / quantitative methods with the data at their disposal) indicate will maximize profits.
 

Red Hawk

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2011
3,266
169
106
Some people want to spend $500 on a video card and have the best available, others want to spend $200. If you only sell a $200 video card model, you're (the manufacturer) leaving money on the table.

Binning has to occur at some point in the manufacturing life cycle, otherwise you are throwing away a non-negligible portion of your output. Only selling a model that every chip you produce can hit means that you will have a slow, uncompetitive product.

The competition operates under the same general manufacturing limitations. In addition, semiconductor manufacturing operates with enormous front-end expenses for fabs and equipment (high-end fabs cost many billions of dollars), and the high-end SKUs have nicer margins and help increase revenue. The marketing factor is also very real, as having the fastest high-end parts can often help the vendor move more lower-end parts and possibly command a price premium.

Ok, I can understand how this is smart from a business perspective. It still seems kind of dishonest to the customer, though. They use the customer's lack of knowledge of the product in order to get away with offering the same product for around $50 more with the only difference being some foundational software.
 

zebrax2

Senior member
Nov 18, 2007
972
62
91
Ok, I can understand how this is smart from a business perspective. It still seems kind of dishonest to the customer, though. They use the customer's lack of knowledge of the product in order to get away with offering the same product for around $50 more with the only difference being some foundational software.

As some have said some of them have defects or not capable of reaching the clocks for the said card that's why they bin them lower.
 

Soleron

Senior member
May 10, 2009
337
0
71
Ok, I can understand how this is smart from a business perspective. It still seems kind of dishonest to the customer, though. They use the customer's lack of knowledge of the product in order to get away with offering the same product for around $50 more with the only difference being some foundational software.

You always have a choice to not buy, or to buy from the competitor. It's not dishonest if the specs are clearly displayed. As a consumer you shouldn't care what the die looked like at the factory, only that you can buy X performance for Y price.
 

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,140
819
126
Sure, but why sell higher if you can sell lower at an acceptable profit?

Because selling higher end products pulls people into higher brackets.

For example let's say I have the following levels of products:

A - $100
B - $150
C - $200

Now I add:
D - $250

Because there is now a higher level option available, a number of purchasers of each of the prior levels will move up into the next higher priced level. Because I added price level D, even some number of people that would previously bought price level A or B will actually move up a price level. They have been "pulled" into a higher price bracket.

Higher price = higher revenue.

Human behavior is very predicable, and marketers use this to their advantage.


This is business, how much profit is "acceptable"?
 
Last edited:

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,939
6
81
Ok, I can understand how this is smart from a business perspective. It still seems kind of dishonest to the customer, though. They use the customer's lack of knowledge of the product in order to get away with offering the same product for around $50 more with the only difference being some foundational software.

1) There's often more than just software changes.
2) There are often reasons for the "software" changes.

Lets take the example of the HD6850 and HD6870.
The 6850 has one cluster disabled, and is cheaper.
The HD6850 PCB is also different, it has less power coming in (one less PCIe plug), because it uses less power. This is due to lower clocks and functional units. This also means that the PCB itself can be potentially cheaper due to lower spec components. Don't need so much power? Don't need so much power circuitry. Don't have the RAM clocked as high? Use some cheaper specced RAM.

Now, that's the knock on effects from having a cut down GPU core, lower power, cheaper "other" components. So the card can be cheaper not only through the GPU being sold by AMD to the card maker for less, but also because it simply costs less to make it all because the other bits are cheaper.

Now, why is AMD selling a GPU for less and disabling some bits?
2 reasons: 1) in order to have a cheaper product without needing an entire new design. Some people might not want to spend $200 and might only want to spend $160, but they don't want to have to make two GPUs to cover those price points, so they make a $200 GPU and can turn it into a $160 GPU. 2) The GPUs don't always work at $200 spec, so they have two choices: throw them away, or change the specs so they fit them. Instead of 850MHz, we'll say it has to work at 775MHz (or w/e). Therefore more GPUs are now sellable and don't need binning. Then there are chip defects where part of a GPU might not work/work right, so they disable that either physically (laser cut) or through "software" (a different BIOS).

The fact that some cards can be flashed to higher spec cards only happens when the PCB and GPU are exactly the same, as is the case with early HD6950 and 6970 cards. That's because AMD couldn't be bothered to release two designs so they gave a single reference design which works for both. Most of the GPU cores presumably work at 6970 specs, since the BIOS flash rate for 6950s is fairly high, but that doesn't mean they ALL do, and it doesn't mean they always work at the normal voltage. That's often why they weren't certified as HD6970 GPUs in the first place.
Sometimes they will just downrate them in order to get the right number of GPUs for each segment, but that's reflected in the pricing. The GPU core may be cut down despite working fine at normal specs and speeds, but the price is also cut down.

If they decided to release a single SKU at a reduced price relative to the top end one (e.g. instead of the HD6970 and HD6950, they released the HD6970 at midway between the two), AMD and their partners would lose out in the long run.
AMD wouldn't have a product with which to "use up" their GPUs which fail to hit HD6970 specs, and partners wouldn't be able to eventually come up with a cheaper PCB design for the HD6950 chips to increase their profit margins.
The fact that the early run HD6950s are the same as HD6970s is more a matter of time and efficiency in the early production cycle of the card than them doing anything bad. The fact that they happen to mostly work at full spec is luck of the draw.


Another example is the HD5800 series.
The HD5870 and HD5850 launched first, and were on sale for a long time. Then AMD released the HD5830 with the same GPU core, but further cut down.
This GPU was basically "the crap bits" which had accumulated over time that couldn't make the cut for the 5870 or 5850, so they waiting until they had a decent stock and made a new product around it.
This product actually uses more power than the HD5850 despite having less functional units and being slower, because they increased the clock speeds and voltages. This shows how different problems can exist and chips can be binned in different ways. Although the HD5830 GPU cores have less shaders enabled than the HD5850, they run them at a higher clockspeed because the problem is mainly with the shaders being defective. But the working ones can run at decent clockspeeds with enough voltage, so they can harvest them that way.

Basically it's all done to maximise the usable GPU dies that get made.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |