This group is known for clickbait, slanted 'exposes' that intentionally misframe content, and selective omissions if they don't support their narrative.
This comment's absolutely and completely misguided and nakedly partisan/tribal viewpoint almost perfectly describes the issue with the media: A complete and utter lack of understanding that perhaps some opposing viewpoints are also valid and worthy of discussion, which then leads to completely biased and untrustworthy activist reporting.
You aren't arguing with Tom's use of the term here - you are arguing with a semiconductor teardown specialist who pointed this out. They are extra chunks of silicon with no logic or transistors that are glued on. Hence, by every single definition of the term, they are dummy silicon.
Yes, they are bonded (glued-on) chunks of silicon with no logic. That is the definition of Dummy Silicon. The person who wrote the report is a professional chip analyst who does die deconstruction.
Your statement is incorrect. The analysis was made by a professional firm - dummy silicon shims are used because the dies are thinned, as per AMD's own disclosures. Those silicon shims are bonded to the compute and SRAM dies.
This is why they provided a normalized comparison versus market cap. They should have probably done it with revenue, but this does provide a means of analysis of the relative efficacy of value creation via R&D dollars.
