Yield has nowt to do with density. Well, it does, but not in the way this comment suggests. 1. I design a chip. I make 30,000 of the chip. I get 50% yield. I have 15,000 chips; the rest went into the bin. 2. I make 30,000 more of the chip. I get 100% yield. I have 30,000 chips; nothing went into the bin. The chips from 1 & 2 are identical in every respect. All that happened is my fab got better at making 'em. What doesn't happen is that I redesign the chip between 1 and 2, because chip design is long and complex and expensive. Now, I said yield has nowt to do with density, which for the above is true. That said, if you want to get technical - and we always do - then the density of your design can affect yield, but it's not a simplistic trade-off. Let's say I make a chip with 50 transistors on it. Hey, I never said it was a complicated chip. At low density, I can make 100 of them per wafer. At 50% yield on a new process node, that leaves me with 50 working chips per wafer. At a higher density, I can fit 1,000 of them per wafer. At the same 50% yield, I'm left with 500 working chips per wafer. Hooray! Except that the increased density might mean a defect which would have only affected one chip affects ten chips. Or that a defect that would have been marginal at low density is a fail. Like I said, it's not that easy. As for the 5700XT, the fact it's using less than the maximum density available on the process node is entirely unrelated to yield - and it could mean the process has a terrible yield, or it could mean the process has a brilliant yield. There's literally no way to know from those numbers. To put it another way, you could fit 5,000 footballers on a pitch, but you wouldn't have a very good game of football.