What does Intel do with dodgy i3 processors? Why haven't

Manufacturing more CPUs is not expensive once you have a fab running. Also they want you to spend more money.

>>58727086
I can understand that, but look at how well AMD did with AM1. It sold like hotcakes across many poorfag places.

It also won't be a best seller because muh core count but it'll still put AMD out of the poverty pricing segment and guarantee more sales.

>>58727021
Intel is alreay a monopoly.

Because it isn't profitable.

as anon said CPU's are fairly cheap to make once the fab is set up, it would be cheaper for intel to chuck the shitty i3's/pentiums than go through the process of testing each failed one to see if it infact does meet the requirements to be a single core chip (incase it got fucked up real bad). Plus, who's going to buy those? there isn't much of a market for something that low end especially when you can buy i5 2500's second hand (in australia anyway) for around $50AU

Intel already sells 2c/2t Celerons for $42 on Newegg. Going lower probably isn't profitable; the number of dies with only one working core probably isn't worth the bother of binning.