Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel is reducing server chip pricing in attempt to stem the AMD tide

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 344 posts

Re: Intel is reducing server chip pricing in attempt to stem the AMD tide

#151

Post by hnuser123456 »

dev_tty01 wrote: post #147
inetknght wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By fusing off the broken and one of the good ones, they can sell it as a two core SKU. Fuse off the broken one? Sure, makes sense. Fuse off a good one? That's arguably amoral and should be discouraged. Three cores can be better than two. Let the consumer disable the runt core if they need.

Amoral? Why? They advertise a two core part, you pay for a two core part, you get a two core part. Completely fair.

Because if they're capable of making plenty of good 4-cores but have more demand for 2-cores so are cutting good 4c, they should just make the 4-cores a little cheaper. But maybe they already do this.

Anyways, agreed ECC should be standard, but it requires an extra die and most people can do fine without it, so it probably won't happen. But an ECC CPU option with clearly marketed consumer full ECC RAM would be nice. DDR5 is a nice step in this direction but isn't "full" ECC.

Re: Intel is reducing server chip pricing in attempt to stem the AMD tide

#153

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

philistine wrote: post #115
vanilla_nut wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I very nearly want them to double down on this disastrous strategy so in 3-5 years we’ll all be saved from Windows by an MS-run Linux distro (with windows theming, naturally) that just runs Wine+some MS internal goodies for backwards compat. It’s really not that different from Apple’s approach with Rosetta 2 in M1.

It’s crazy that this now aligns with Microsoft’s goals and could conceivably happen. Microsoft has the capacity to realize that the value of Windows is not the codebase, but the compatibility. They could let the Linux subsystem swallow Windows and wrap Windows itself inside it. However, I believe we’ll continue to see their colocation system instead, where Windows and Linux are both wrapped inside a system managing b…

... Windows subsystem for Windows? (Although I guess maybe wow64 was that already)

Re: Intel is reducing server chip pricing in attempt to stem the AMD tide

#154

Post by emptyparadise »

vanilla_nut wrote: post #97
codeflo wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so optimistic. There are some technical things Microsoft did poorly when going from x86 to x86-64, which in my opinion delayed the transition of a lot of software by a decade. And this is with processors that can run both instruction sets natively, where no actual software emulation was required. To give some context (this started with Windows Server 2003 64-bit and is still how it works in Windows 11): Inste…

I very nearly want them to double down on this disastrous strategy so in 3-5 years we’ll all be saved from Windows by an MS-run Linux distro (with windows theming, naturally) that just runs Wine+some MS internal goodies for backwards compat. It’s really not that different from Apple’s approach with Rosetta 2 in M1.

Microsoft-made Linux distribution finally making Linux on the desktop happen, did somebody wish for it on a monkey paw?

Re: Intel is reducing server chip pricing in attempt to stem the AMD tide

#155

Post by papercrane »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #89
woofie11 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one more issue is support. If I want a chip from TI, Analog Devices, etc., I fill out a web form and get a sample. If I want to talk to an engineer, I place a phone call. If I want to order a dozen of a part, I go to Digikey. If I want a datasheet, it's online. Intel won't give you the time of day unless you're HP or Dell. That's optimal for capitalizing on old markets, but it means it's never in new markets.…

Intel and AMD are both like that, and it makes me wonder how much space they have opened up for ARM. I would love a small x86 SoC if it came with the same level of support that an NXP or TI ARM chip has, but they don't.

> Intel and AMD are both like that, and it makes me wonder how much space they have opened up for ARM.

Arguably, this is what led to the creation of ARM. Acorn wanted to make a computer with a 286, but Intel ignored them, so they decided to build their own RISC based CPU, the "Acorn RISC Machine".

Re: Intel is reducing server chip pricing in attempt to stem the AMD tide

#156

Post by billsnow »

tw04 wrote: post #103

I've never had time for Intel creating 400 different CPUs just to create artificial market segmentation and force people into a more expensive CPU. Why is there an i3, i5, i7, i9 - ahh, right, because then you can try to justify charging incrementally more for each additional feature. Oh you want turbo boost? Sorry that's an i5! Oh you want hyperthreading/SMT? Nope, next model up. Oh you want ECC? That's a "workstati…

ECC support is an actual +10-20% cost in materials for the motherboard and DIMM manufacturers. Also, ECC errors are basically non-existent on desktop/laptop workloads. ECC is worth the extra cost in servers, but for desktops and laptops, the market got it right.

Re: Intel is reducing server chip pricing in attempt to stem the AMD tide

#157

Post by tambre »

xyzzy21 wrote: post #134
tw04 wrote: post #103

I've never had time for Intel creating 400 different CPUs just to create artificial market segmentation and force people into a more expensive CPU. Why is there an i3, i5, i7, i9 - ahh, right, because then you can try to justify charging incrementally more for each additional feature. Oh you want turbo boost? Sorry that's an i5! Oh you want hyperthreading/SMT? Nope, next model up. Oh you want ECC? That's a "workstati…

The "reason" is yield management combined with inventory management. The i3 through i9 are generally the exact same silicon. But yields are always variable. If you took the raw yield the actual i9 per wafer might only be 10%-20% which would not be economically viable. So designed into EVERY Intel product (and generally every other semiconductor company's products) are "fuses" and circuitry that can re-map and re-prog…

> So generally, to use your example, a non-ECC processor is a regular processor "who's" ECC logic has failed and is inoperable.

But no high performance mainstream desktop Intel CPU supports ECC [0]. Meanwhile AMD doesn't have any that lack it.

What gives? Surely Intel's ECC logic doesn't have such a huge defect ratio that Intel can't have even a single regular mainstream part with ECC.

At work I need fairly low performance CPU with decent integrated graphics. Intel's iGPUs are great were it not for the lack of any parts with ECC. Nevermind that finding a non-server Intel motherboard with ECC support would restrict the choice such that there'd likely be none with also other desired features.

[0] https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/search/featurefi...

Re: Intel is reducing server chip pricing in attempt to stem the AMD tide

#158

Post by alexhawke »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #133
tw04 wrote: post #103

I've never had time for Intel creating 400 different CPUs just to create artificial market segmentation and force people into a more expensive CPU. Why is there an i3, i5, i7, i9 - ahh, right, because then you can try to justify charging incrementally more for each additional feature. Oh you want turbo boost? Sorry that's an i5! Oh you want hyperthreading/SMT? Nope, next model up. Oh you want ECC? That's a "workstati…

It’s worth keeping in mind that the silicon lottery is very much a thing at these nanometer sizes. So some market segmentation has to exist. If Intel threw away every chip that had one of the four cores come out broken, they’d lose a lot of money and have to raise prices to compensate. By fusing off the broken and one of the good ones, they can sell it as a two core SKU. Does this excuse Intel’s form of market segmen…

Apple produces one A series chip for the iPhones every year. How does that work?

Re: Intel is reducing server chip pricing in attempt to stem the AMD tide

#159

Post by deedree »

inetknght wrote: post #140
colejohnson66 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s worth keeping in mind that the silicon lottery is very much a thing at these nanometer sizes. So some market segmentation has to exist. If Intel threw away every chip that had one of the four cores come out broken, they’d lose a lot of money and have to raise prices to compensate. By fusing off the broken and one of the good ones, they can sell it as a two core SKU. Does this excuse Intel’s form of market segmen…

> By fusing off the broken and one of the good ones, they can sell it as a two core SKU. Fuse off the broken one? Sure, makes sense. Fuse off a good one? That's arguably amoral and should be discouraged. Three cores can be better than two. Let the consumer disable the runt core if they need.

To be pedantic, you mean immoral right? It's bad, they shouldn't waste usable resources just to fit their marketing scheme.

Amoral means that it is not moral or immoral.

Re: Intel is reducing server chip pricing in attempt to stem the AMD tide

#160

Post by dageshi »

hnuser123456 wrote: post #151
dev_tty01 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amoral? Why? They advertise a two core part, you pay for a two core part, you get a two core part. Completely fair.

Because if they're capable of making plenty of good 4-cores but have more demand for 2-cores so are cutting good 4c, they should just make the 4-cores a little cheaper. But maybe they already do this. Anyways, agreed ECC should be standard, but it requires an extra die and most people can do fine without it, so it probably won't happen. But an ECC CPU option with clearly marketed consumer full ECC RAM would be nice.…

I don't know if mobile cores factor into the same process, but if you have a lot of demand for 2 core system for cheap laptops that can't supply the power or cooling for a 4 core then having more 4 cores, even if they're cheaper doesn't help.
Post reply on HN