NVIDIA is obviously not above market segmentation via dubious means (see: driver limitations for consumer GPUs), but I think binning due to silicon defects is a more likely explanation in this case. Some 4090s have this extra fp16 -> fp32 ALU disabled because it's defective on that chip. Other 4090s have it disabled because it failed as an Ada 6000 for some other reason, but NVIDIA didn't want to make a 4095 SKU to s…
Depending on who you ask, binning is segmentation. Generally demand isn't going to exactly match how the yields work out, so companies often take a bunch of perfectly good high-end chips, nerf them, and throw them in the cheapo version. You used to be able to (and still can, in some cases) take a low-end device and, if you'd won the chip lottery, "undo" the binning and have a perfectly functional high-end version. Fo…
For the purposes you tested it, sure. Maybe some esoteric feature you don't use is broken. NVIDIA still can't sell it as the higher end SKU. The tests a chip maker runs to bin their chips are not the same tests you might run.
I'm sure chip makers make small adjustments to supply via binning to satisfy market demand, but if the "technical binning" is too far out of line from the "market binning", that's a lot of money left on the table that will get corrected sooner or later.
edit: And that correction might be in the form of removing redundancies from the chip design, rather than increasing the supply/lowering the price of higher end SKUs. The whole point here is, that's two sides of the same coin.