That sounds like a huge cost to bear. Looking at e.g. a Haswell die photo [1], there are just four physical cores present for a four-core part. With that die area per core, you would take a ~15-20% area hit (that translates to 15-20% cost) just to have a spare core in case one failed some years later.
I have heard of manufacturers selling otherwise "defective" parts where a core or cache slice has a defect by relabeling as a part with fewer cores. But that's a manufacture-time decision, not a dynamic reconfiguration in the field.
[1] http://cdn2.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Intel-Ha...
It seems like the GP might be suggesting that a quad-core CPU will swap in another core when one dies. That doesn't happen. But the binning process allows them to still sell slightly defective silicon with disabled parts (cores, cache), which saves money.
On a related note, a lot of GPUs actually do have a few dozen execution units that are disabled by default and can be swapped in after stress testing at the factory. I believe some can even do that in the wild, but I could be wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3#Technical_specif...
The cell processor had a main PowerPC core and eight floating-point SIMD co-processors called synergistic processing elements (SPE). For the PS3, one of the eight SPEs was disabled and another was reserved for the operating system, leaving the other six for developers.