|
K8.0 posted:So if Intel did no market segmentation, and everything was (and thus was priced as) a Xeon, you'd be happier, because a desktop CPU costs $2k but at least there's no market segmentation? No, obviously a publicly traded company that has a responsibility its to share holders to turn a profit should sell things it does completely for free
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 03:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
K8.0 posted:So if Intel did no market segmentation, and everything was (and thus was priced as) a Xeon, you'd be happier, because a desktop CPU costs $2k but at least there's no market segmentation? I didn't articulate it well, but I'm fine with them making different processors for different purposes. But disabling functionality on an existing processor to hold out for a payout is too much to me. Like I said, they're making money hand over fist, it's just going the extra mile to wring money out of people at that point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 03:41
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:So if Intel did no market segmentation, and everything was (and thus was priced as) a Xeon, you'd be happier, because a desktop CPU costs $2k but at least there's no market segmentation? I think he’s asking for market segmentation based of the physical limitations of the silicon as it was binned instead of arbitrary tiers being created under those
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 03:41
|
|
|
Full CPU Communism Today
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 03:42
|
|
|
Inept posted:I didn't articulate it well, but I'm fine with them making different processors for different purposes. But disabling functionality on an existing processor to hold out for a payout is too much to me. Like I said, they're making money hand over fist, it's just going the extra mile to wring money out of people at that point. I have bad news for you what nearly every single "different processor" actually is. And it's not just Intel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 03:44
|
|
|
BangersInMyKnickers posted:I think he’s asking for market segmentation based of the physical limitations of the silicon as it was binned instead of arbitrary tiers being created under those Which is still stupid because of how processors are created
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 03:45
|
|
|
People have been railing in this thread against Intel artificially limiting their processor improvements for years due to lack of competition. I don't get why my mentioning them limiting their processors in another way is so contentious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 03:51
|
|
|
BangersInMyKnickers posted:I think he’s asking for market segmentation based of the physical limitations of the silicon as it was binned instead of arbitrary tiers being created under those Which would result in exactly the scenario I posted. Intel's market segmenting is, in general, hugely beneficial to home users. Yeah, there's stuff that we look at and say "oh that sucks", but if they left every feature possible enabled on every CPU, any attempt at a cheap home CPU would be gobbled up at higher prices for servers/compute/etc, since they'd be worth a lot more to them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
Inept posted:People have been railing in this thread against Intel artificially limiting their processor improvements for years due to lack of competition. I don't get why my mentioning them limiting their processors in another way is so contentious. Because the former has nothing to do with the later
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 03:57
|
|
|
Forced segmentation is literally why the market works now. The technology is mature, R&D costs are astronomical. You either spread the cost, or lengthen lifecycles to truly comical lengths to offset the upfront investment. Investors and consumers don't like multi-decade life cycles, so here we are. Short of tearing down capitalism, I haven't really seen a way around that yet. That doesn't mean Intel (or AMD, or Nvidia) doesn't do lovely stuff, but the fundamental approach is the same with all of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 04:05
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Forced segmentation is literally why the market works now. The technology is mature, R&D costs are astronomical. You either spread the cost, or lengthen lifecycles to truly comical lengths to offset the upfront investment. Investors and consumers don't like multi-decade life cycles, so here we are. Yeah, we could have a spirited debate about their segmentation strategy and shortcomings of, but the practice of segmentation itself is way down on the list of bad things. Software unlocking itself is even farther
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 04:08
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Short of tearing down capitalism, I haven't really seen a way around that yet. That doesn't mean Intel (or AMD, or Nvidia) doesn't do lovely stuff, but the fundamental approach is the same with all of them. I agree. I just don't see the point of defending their strategies like in the original post I quoted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 04:13
|
|
|
Inept posted:I agree. I just don't see the point of defending their strategies like in the original post I quoted. Because, again, I'd rather not have to buy an i9 or i7 when all I need is a Pentium but go ahead and continue to ignore this and every other post that explains why it actually is not the terrible thing you make it out to be that only Intel does
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 04:20
|
|
|
I don't think Intel is the only one that does it. It's annoying when any company does it, but this is the Intel thread. A Pentium is physically a different processor. Charging more for hyperthreading is stupid though, especially given its security issues 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 04:41
|
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:No, obviously a publicly traded company that has a responsibility its to share holders to turn a profit should sell things it does completely for free Not really A Thing
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 04:53
|
|
|
Yes but being a good corporate citizen generally involves things like supporting worthy social causes, only doing business with certain types of companies, giving generous employee benefits or compensation, using conflict free materials, diversity hiring, etc. Giving away R&D work you sunk millions in for free so someone's computer runs certain things a little better generally generally isn't considered part of that. Hell, charging people for actual work that you did generally isn't considered unethical. WhyteRyce fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Jan 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 05:05
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Short of tearing down capitalism, i'm down, let's do this. we all need to stop caring about money and start caring about shortening my frametimes in MHWorld
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 06:22
|
|
|
People in this thread also get mad when there is a significant price drop because it's a "gently caress you to early adopters", there is literally no pleasing some people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 18:25
|
|
|
My favorite thing is when people complain they can't overclock as much anymore ever since Intel started having their chips clock up on the regular and otherwise sold with rated performance close to the max performance the chip can physically do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
Can’t wait for the one guy trying to dunk on Intel for having net profit and not socializing hyperthreading for the people realizes they also spend $11B/ quarter on plant & equipment because it turns out manufacturing microprocessors is expensive. Or that the primary driver for revenue growth is modems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 06:31
|
|
|
Yeah and Comcast spends a ton of money on infrastructure and makes much more money from TV services than internet. But I'm guessing you're not going into threads defending their anti-consumer lobbying habits via the FCC or price gouging on services. Intel is making more profit per quarter than ever, obviously manufacturing costs aren't hurting them even if they can't crank out 10nm after 5 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 07:18
|
|
|
To look at it another way and look at just plain consumer vs. enterprise, you do know there is a mountain of work that can be put into a product that isn't measured in pure physical differences. Are you mad about consumers being locked out of enterprise features? Because Intel spends millions putting stuff in for enterprise customers even if it makes no sense for the home user. Are you mad OOB or remote management capabilities aren't available to you unless you buy the right SKU?
WhyteRyce fucked around with this message at 09:25 on Jan 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 08:25
|
|
|
The only one that really pisses me off is ECC. As memory size and usage keeps increasing consumer PCs are getting into the realm of "bitflips are a realistic problem" where they weren't before. It wouldn't be prohibitively expensive to put 9bits on everything, and they could keep soaking enterprise users with the registered vs unbuffered split.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 10:26
|
|
|
It’s not easy getting the most value out of the product slate you’ve got for your shareholders without blatantly screwing your customers. Their affordable consumer options still give people absurd amounts of computing power. Even hex core i5’s are pretty excellent for pretty much any task for mainstream users. Who is really getting screwed by the SMT premium? Maybe a couple IT purchasers who’s bonus metrics are looking a little dicey this quarter. If you’re a HEDT enthusiast and you’re complaining, then you really picked the wrong hobby. Or you know, there’s another company that’s selling competitive CPU’s without such a big premium on both SMT and core count. For the first time in a good long while, in fact.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 10:42
|
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:To look at it another way and look at just plain consumer vs. enterprise, you do know there is a mountain of work that can be put into a product that isn't measured in pure physical differences. Are you mad about consumers being locked out of enterprise features? Because Intel spends millions putting stuff in for enterprise customers even if it makes no sense for the home user. Are you mad OOB or remote management capabilities aren't available to you unless you buy the right SKU?
Those five are definitely anti-consumer intentional segmentation that has little to no impact on profits. The last one was literally done to show 'progress' when they made next to none. They were a behemoth twiddling their thumbs peddling the same desktop CPU year after year. I got a lot of mileage out of my c2d and i7 3770k, but there are millions of people who bought locked i5s/i7s or upgraded to bigger number CPUs that offered little to nothing over the same crap they've sold since. 8700k was the first actual-progress consumer CPU in ages. They added an extra 2 cores which was great. 9900k they added another 2 cores, stopped using awful TIM, and added competent built-in OC so they weren't getting crushed by competition on stock benchmarks. Don't even get me started on server stuff. With no competition, Intel went full greed in all markets. Now there's real competition forcing them to be more honest which is good for everyone. Khorne fucked around with this message at 14:06 on Jan 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 13:57
|
|
|
The clock speeds aren't really arbitrarily being locked down. They meet the power envelopes they need to, CPUs can do much higher but go from 100 watts to 1 kilowatt, so hot that even with liquid nitrogen they're seeing positive temperatures.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 14:06
|
|
|
craig588 posted:The clock speeds aren't really arbitrarily being locked down. They meet the power envelopes they need to, CPUs can do much higher but go from 100 watts to 1 kilowatt, so hot that even with liquid nitrogen they're seeing positive temperatures. If you're talking about the latest generation, then they're at a very reasonable place if not slightly too aggressive (3.6 base, 4.9 boost). If the previous generations were like that the 2600 would boost to ~4.7, the 3770 would boost to at least 4.2 if not 4.4. If they had used actual solder for the 3770, then 4.6-4.7 boost. I agree, there are points of diminishing returns and % yields to consider. One of the advantages of enabling overclocking is to allow people to underclock and get more power efficiency out of their processor. Khorne fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Jan 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 14:18
|
|
|
Why am I not getting SMT on my entry level Ryzen 3 desktop CPU?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 16:25
|
|
|
because they dont have SMT?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
Looking forward to Intel charging extra for non-HT CPUs now that it's a security benefit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 22:14
|
|
|
Lockback posted:People in this thread also get mad when there is a significant price drop because it's a "gently caress you to early adopters", there is literally no pleasing some people. Yeah but those people are idiots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 18:01
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
e: oops wrong thread.
moolchaba fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Jan 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:Yeah but those people are idiots. That's why they're early adopters! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
I deeply appreciated anandtech's 3 pages of intel historical shade on reviewing ONE cpu thats in a sub-walmart chineese special and NUC for nobody. The GPU doesn't even work on it, they had to ship with discrete graphics  .
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
To be fair they are trying to extrapolate cpu performance for a process available since
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 19:28
|
|
|
incoherent posted:I deeply appreciated anandtech's 3 pages of intel historical shade on reviewing ONE cpu thats in a sub-walmart chineese special and NUC for nobody. The GPU doesn't even work on it, they had to ship with discrete graphics I'm loving the 50% more power consumption at base clock than the equivalent part on the previous process node at the same base clock. Can't wait to hear Paul explain why this is a good thing for Intel and how it utterly destroys AMD in all aspects
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
Kazinsal posted:Can't wait to hear Paul explain why this is a good thing for Intel and how it utterly destroys AMD in all aspects 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 21:17
|
|
|
hahahaha
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
I early adopted a 8700K and it cost $300. Seems like I saved around $50 bux.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
Intel finished with a record year across the board, and projects 2019 to be another record. 4th quarter basically matched the record 3rd quarter ($18.7B vs $19.2B). Looks like the only business unit that isn't raking in the dough is IoT, which isn't surprising. Intel more or less gave up on a lot of that market. Thought this quote was interesting: quote:The PC-centric business (CCG) was up 10 percent in the fourth quarter due to continued strong demand for Intel's higher performance products and strength in commercial and gaming. CCG expanded its product portfolio for 2019 with the recent launch of new 9th Gen Intel® Core™ processors and unveiled "Ice Lake" the upcoming, 10nm-based PC processor, which is expected to be in OEM systems on shelves for holiday, 2019. Looks like Ice Lake will be a late year launch. https://www.intc.com/investor-relat...ts/default.aspx
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 17:51
|
|