|
Ihmemies posted:Hopefully AMD will do it properly and forces intel to compete. for what? the .0001% overclocking market?
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:for what? the .0001% overclocking market? are you that thick?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
PC market is shrinking but there are still sales to be had. Especially in laptop and server land where ASP's are still higher I believe. Avg. users won't care about the CPU but they do care about bang vs buck and many of them haven't bothered to upgrade for much the same reason many enthusiasts haven't. The value just wasn't there to make a new system worth while.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Toast Museum posted:Also, hasn't Intel been pretty up-front about prioritizing low power consumption over increased performance? The only use case for fast, single threaded processing has been consumer gaming. Everyone else in the market either wants efficiency for battery life or efficiency so they can pay less to cool their datacenters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Blorange posted:The only use case for fast, single threaded processing has been consumer gaming. Everyone else in the market either wants efficiency for battery life or efficiency so they can pay less to cool their datacenters. What about Solidworks?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:for what? the .0001% overclocking market? I'm part of the .0001% market and many competing firms will try their best to sell me new products. Intel hasn't been doing that since SB. Companies will produce better products if someone else does better than they do... If Zen is good and has solder or better tim than Intel, I bet Intel will improve in that regard too eventually. It's not like they don't know how to do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:PC market is shrinking but there are still sales to be had. Especially in laptop and server land where ASP's are still higher I believe. It's worth remembering that when we're talking about "PC market shrinking" we're talking like going from 330 million units a year to 280 million units a year. It's still an assload of stuff selling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Not really holding my breath over the Ryzen, AMD will surely find a way to underdeliver. Not saying this as an Intel fanboy as they've been riding the power consumption pony for a while now. **ninjaedit** Its page 286, only 100 more pages till 386 and 200 till 486!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Celebrate when we get page 8086 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Sormus posted:Not really holding my breath over the Ryzen, AMD will surely find a way to underdeliver. Not saying this as an Intel fanboy as they've been riding the power consumption pony for a while now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:i dunno, 45 less watts than a comparable Xeon Broadwell-EP/Broadwell-E SKU for the same performance is at least eyebrow-raising. Yeah, that's fuckin killer if it extends to the real meaty 10-18 core SKUs. AMD has killed it if they do so. Intel also price gouges even more for 4 socket platforms, if AMD's capable of selling a 4-socket enabled part for Xeon 2-socket pricing, they can even enjoy some fat margins themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Jago posted:What a crazy straw man argument. Why did you type all that? Yes, some people here have been unreasonably on one side of that silly argument or the other. On the whole though, I think we have a pretty nuanced view of the pressures, both profit and physics wise. He's not wrong, plenty of people here have made the argument that Intel holding out on the core count on their consumer chips is no big deal because nobody uses more than 4 cores anyway. And then once AMD starts dangling cheap 8-core chips with Haswell performance in front of people everyone starts thinking that maybe it's a pretty cool idea after all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:It's amusing how quickly the conversation has changed in the past few months. It's been what, seven? years of a steady drumbeat of "physics is hard! we hit fundamental limits! can't do any better you're just not smart enough to understand!" while Intel is just lazily minting money. Seven years of pointing out that the "physics" argument is utter horseshit and getting dogpiled/downvoted/whatever for it, or for daring to criticize Intel. They have a million PhDs, you think you know more about chip design than them? How dare you. this would make a v nice entry in your journal
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Sormus posted:Its page 286, only 100 more pages till 386 and 200 till 486! This thread is now in 16-bit protected mode. Anime Schoolgirl posted:i dunno, 45 less watts than a comparable Xeon Broadwell-EP/Broadwell-E SKU for the same performance is at least eyebrow-raising. Yeah that's the kind of thing that would definitely get me to build a home server, and probably a new desktop as well if it's inexpensive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Didn't intel pull some poo poo a while back with a certain line of processor (Atom or Pentium, I think) where if you bought a scratch off card it would allow the processor to use another megabyte of cache and enable hyperthreading that was already there in the first place?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
weak wrists big dick posted:Didn't intel pull some poo poo a while back with a certain line of processor (Atom or Pentium, I think) where if you bought a scratch off card it would allow the processor to use another megabyte of cache and enable hyperthreading that was already there in the first place? This is how all computer chips have worked for some time now. The set-up cost for production of computer chips is incredibly high, so to get around this, computer chip companies manufacture only one type of chip, and disable different amounts of its functionality to create the different product categories. If this bothers you, I hope you are also railing against software companies for daring to charge money for their software when they also let you download the free, limited functionality version from their website. They could be giving you the full featured version at no additional cost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:This is how all computer chips have worked for some time now. The set-up cost for production of computer chips is incredibly high, so to get around this, computer chip companies manufacture only one type of chip, and disable different amounts of its functionality to create the different product categories. At least in theory, chips vary in production quality enough for binning to make sense. Selling scratch-off cards to unlock processor functionality just seems scammy, even if it isn't functionally different from regular processor branding. Fame Douglas fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Dec 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
weak wrists big dick posted:Didn't intel pull some poo poo a while back with a certain line of processor (Atom or Pentium, I think) where if you bought a scratch off card it would allow the processor to use another megabyte of cache and enable hyperthreading that was already there in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:At least in theory, chips vary in production quality enough for binning to make sense. Selling scratch-off cards to unlock processor functionality just seems scammy, even if it isn't functionally different from regular processor branding. I'm not in the business, so I can't say for sure, but I strongly suspect they disable what would be perfectly good i7s to create Pentiums. The alternative to that would be to either 1) have perfect knowledge of your manufacturing process and perfect prediction of product sales and tune the manufacturing process so that the spectrum of the differently abled chips meshed with the sales breakdown of product categories or 2) wildly overproduce chips and leave tons of inventory on the shelves. It makes more sense to me at least for Intel to convert i7s to Pentiums instead of 2) and I don't think they have the capability to totally do 1).
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
It's not necessarily Intel, sometimes OEMs request certain SKUs and price points. You can't just heavily discount your product to meet the price or give some bottom level SKU a bunch of features for free, so you disable it. But hey, if the feature is there and the customer wants to upgrade later down the road, why not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Sashimi posted:AMD has done similar things. Around 6 years ago you could buy a triple core Athlon II X3 processor and unlock a 4th core if you paired it with the right motherboards. it's more like unlocking GPU cores really
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Also should be said that the scratch off method for more cores / cache was really hit or miss and might make the CPU real unstable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Sashimi posted:AMD has done similar things. Around 6 years ago you could buy a triple core Athlon II X3 processor and unlock a 4th core if you paired it with the right motherboards. My recollection of this wasn't that it was an upsell. It was that they only promised three cores so that they could sell the ones with the flawed fourth core, but frequently the fourth core was still usable if you used boards designed to let you, but there were no guarantees you'd be able to use it with the upgraded motherboard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Sashimi posted:AMD has done similar things. Around 6 years ago you could buy a triple core Athlon II X3 processor and unlock a 4th core if you paired it with the right motherboards. That's not even close. That was simply an unofficial bios hack, which is a way of getting better value from your purchase. The CPUs were binned such that not all of them would work with the extra core unlocked. (I've seen that with my own eyes, a core that was flaky and ultimately wasn't worth enabling). On the Intel side he's referring to this, which is simply a cynical marketing tactic. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:At least in theory, chips vary in production quality enough for binning to make sense. Selling scratch-off cards to unlock processor functionality just seems scammy, even if it isn't functionally different from regular processor branding. I'm pretty certain that the vast, vast majority of i5s have fully-functional hyperthreading units onboard, i.e. they are just being locked down for market segmentation. Is making people buy a whole new processor supposed to be better somehow? HalloKitty posted:That's not even close. That was simply an unofficial bios hack, which is a way of getting better value from your purchase. The CPUs were binned such that not all of them would work with the extra core unlocked. (I've seen that with my own eyes, a core that was flaky and ultimately wasn't worth enabling). Aww, so pwwecious, baby's first encounter with capacity-on-demand systems. http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/hardware/cod/offerings.html http://www.fujitsu.com/global/products/computing/servers/unix/sparc/technology/flexibility/capacity-on-demand.html https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19855-01/E21467-01/cod.html Just think, enterprise hardware companies will stick whole processors and memory in your system that you aren't allowed to use until you buy a license! Scandal! Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
TIL enterprise solutions and consumer systems are equivalent
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:TIL enterprise solutions and consumer systems are equivalent Nope. And that's why adding hyperthreading to an i5 costs $300 and requires taking apart your system, instead of paying $150 and typing some numbers into your BIOS. I mean it's not like Intel stopped selling i3s while they were doing that - so if you don't like it then either buy the i3 or settle for your pentium. Problem solved. Another fun example though: the Raspberry Pi has various media decoders on its GPU that are locked down until you pay $5 per codec and put a serial-specific license key into a text file on the boot disk. Pretty hefty money considering the thing only costs $35 in the first place. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Another fun example though: the Raspberry Pi has various media decoders on its GPU that are locked down until you pay $5 per codec and put a serial-specific license key into a text file on the boot disk. Pretty hefty money considering the thing only costs $35 in the first place. I assume you are making an argument against software patents?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:I assume you are making an argument against software patents? I'm against software patents in general, but here I'm just using the Raspberry Pi as an example of a consumer processor where there's functionality that's disabled until you pay for a license key. The problem with software patents is that taking something non-patentable and adding "on a computer" isn't supposed to be patentable either. If you come up with the next LZW algorithm that's great, patent that. But there's no need to issue a patent for "a computer program that does LZW" too. And in general the patent office does a terrible job and issues a whole bunch of really obvious patents for poo poo like "downloading software updates". Ironically SCOTUS has pretty much gotten it right and a couple years ago they essentially destroyed the software patent as we know it. The problem is actually the Federal courts, who keep doing their best to blatantly ignore SCOTUS overturning their terrible decisions. It's finally starting to sink in though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161005/15280135720/prominent-pro-patent-judge-issues-opinion-declaring-all-software-patents-bad.shtml Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
I hope a bunch of people here never look too much at different Intel chipsets and wonder why the B, H, and Z SKUs all have different features
WhyteRyce fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:TIL enterprise solutions and consumer systems are equivalent So you're saying spending $50 once to unlock something on your system is horrible but spending $50,000 a month instead is fine?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Well, alot of places do produce different designs for different market segments (G_10#, the various snapdragons and other arm processors), yeah it does make sense for places to intentionally disable parts of chips for that same effect, especially if the higher end (read: larger) parts are such high volume ones. It's the same sentiment behind cereal producers making both the main and the generic brands the same way. Certain markets are only so big, so once you saturate it, you can't really do anything else to grow. You can create a brand new chip to fill the lower market segments, but that might not be the best solution as you do have all that higher end stock that is slightly flawed or turns out to not be so repairable, plus it costs so much to design, test, and produce it. I think intel et al usually lasers off interconnects or something to make the lower end chips, but if they can create a software method to do so, that saves a step right there, plus it removes the risk of the lasering accidentally killing something else. Once its in software, then why not let people re-enable things? I mean, its not like we are at a dlc model (yet) in the consumer domain where you can only buy an i3 or whatever and have to pay hundreds to unlock smt, more cores, cache, etc. Frankly, I'm surprised that phone arm processors even have the separate chips for each market, though it might make sense if smaller chips are better.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
I'm not sure how modern CPUs do it but for most other chips they have fuses that are blown so when the device boots the firmware reads the permanently set code and sets up the device accordingly. The dies are identical, it's just a slight change during the packaging process that makes the difference. The dies can also be binned into performance grades but that's not always even necessary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
how useful is HT these days anyway? is it mostly good for workstation related stuff or can it benefit gaming?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
AEMINAL posted:how useful is HT these days anyway? is it mostly good for workstation related stuff or can it benefit gaming? A normal machine is running 100-150 processes on a light load. If more than ${corecount} is active at any moment then you get some benefit from HT.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
It has given us very fast and long lasting laptops running just two cores with hyperthreading. Makes me wonder if hyperthreading could be extended even further, like four threads (?) per core or something similar.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
There are other implementations of simultaneous multithreading that can handle more than 2 threads per core.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
FunOne posted:A normal machine is running 100-150 processes on a light load. If more than ${corecount} is active at any moment then you get some benefit from HT.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 15:30
|
|
priznat posted:I'm not sure how modern CPUs do it but for most other chips they have fuses that are blown so when the device boots the firmware reads the permanently set code and sets up the device accordingly. The dies are identical, it's just a slight change during the packaging process that makes the difference. The dies can also be binned into performance grades but that's not always even necessary. Oh duh, fuses... Yeah thats one way
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Makes me wonder if hyperthreading could be extended even further, like four threads (?) per core or something similar.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 15:47
|
|