You know, there's a few articles out on this size difference subject; if they can make my CPU 10% faster by doubling the physical size -- all other things being equal I'd take that.
This is also why high quality TVs are harder to manufacture than high quality phone displays. You have a lot more waste when you need to throw out/recycle a TV screen compared to a phone screen. And both are considered bad when they have just one bad pixel.
Is this assumption true?
With smaller chips, you have a smaller "grid" for your dart to land on. So the total number of failures (darts) being the same, you still end up with less usable silicon, since the bigger grid means you throw away a lot more surface area with a failure.
Take a look at this picture of a failure map, if you would like some visuals: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S09521976120008...
no. intel used to make extra cores for their 128 core cpus to account for the defects, and it was not rare to receive a cpu with more than 128 cores because it was a good one.
AMD uses an IO die manufactured on an older process at another manufacturer (14 or 16nm Global foundries) than their core chiplets (7nm TSMC). I think they even used the same IO die across multiple generations of EPYC/Ryzen, but I'm not sure.
This is also why the approach is an "Apple-only" one.
You're suggesting Apple devices cost between two and three times as much as the competition? I'd like to see that competition, so please show us those $280 Mac Mini and iPhone 13 Mini killers. Or, conversely, show us a superior device for the same price. Remember to match point for point all features of whatever Apple device you somehow believe costs 2-3x as much as it's third party clone.