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

211–220 of 344 posts

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

#211

Post by arcticbull »

chippiewill wrote: post #185
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…

> Does this excuse Intel’s form of market segmentation? No. They almost certainly disable, for example, hyperthreading on cores that support it - just for the segmentation. I think even this is a bit unfair. Intel's segmentation is definitely still overkill, but it's worth bearing in mind that the cost of the product is not just the marginal cost of the materials and labour. Most of the cost (especially for intel) is…

Without knowing what the silicon lottery distribution actually looks like we can't really say that.

> "... but it's worth bearing in mind that the cost of the product is not just the marginal cost of the materials and labour."

Yes, you could choose to amortize it over every product but then you're selling each CPU for the same price no matter which functional units happen to be defective on a given part.

Since that's not a great strategy (who wants to pay the same for a 12 core part as a 4 core part because the amount of sand that went into it is the same?) you then begin to assign more value to the parts with more function, do you not? And then this turns into a gradient. And eventually, you charge very little for the parts that only reception PCs require, and a lot more for the ones that perform much better.

Once you get to diminishing returns there's going to be a demographic you can charge vastly more for that last 1% juice, because either they want to flex or at their scale it matters.

Pretty soon once you get to the end of the thought exercise it starts to look an awful lot like Intel's line-up.

I think what folks don't realize is even now, Intel 10nm fully functional yields are ~50%. That means the other half of those parts, if we're lucky, can be tested and carved up to lower bins.

Even within the "good" 50% certain parts are going to be able to perform much better than others.

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

#212

Post by officeplant »

wayoutthere wrote: post #202
tcoff91 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Baseless speculation: perhaps they do actually throw away chips? They only really target a premium market segment so perhaps it's not worth it to their brand to try and keep those chips.

No way; the half-busted chips go into low-cost products like the iPhone SE. It costs little to accumulate and warehouse them until a spot in the roadmap for a budget device arises.

The SE series uses the same chips, but cheaps out in other ways by going with older body, older camera, older screen.

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

#213

Post by arcticbull »

inasio wrote: post #186
minhazm wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at the Apple A12x. They disabled a GPU core in it for the iPad, and then in the A12z they enabled that core. This was likely to help with yields. Then with the M1 chips they decided to sell a 7 core version of the chip with the base level Macbook Air and save the 8 core version for the higher trims. Even Apple is susceptible to it. But Apple doesn't sell chips, they sell devices and they can eat the cost for som…

The M1 (ok, in the 7 and 8 GPU core configurations) is in the Macbook air, Macbook pro, Ipad, Imac, and Mac mini...

All of those device perform exactly the same, as Apple has chosen the same power/thermal set point for all of them. This is going to start to look a lot different in coming years when the larger MacBook Pro transitions - I expect 2-3 more models there. Then when the Mac Pro transitions I expect another 2-3 models there.

We'll start to see high-binned next-gen Apple Silicon parts moving to the MacBook Pro, and Mac Pro, and lower-binned parts making their way down-range.

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

#214

Post by officeplant »

deckard1 wrote: post #194
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…

Just to note, AMD does every single thing you blame Intel for. AMD recently dicked b350/x370 chipset owners by sending motherboard manufacturers a memo telling them not to support Zen 3 (5000 series) Ryzen CPUs on their older chipsets.[1] This was after AsRock sent out a beta BIOS which proved that 5000 series CPUs worked fine on b350 chipsets. Today, AsRock's beta BIOS still isn't on their website and it's nearly a…

>OEM desktop chips which can only be found outside North America (think AliExpress, or random sellers on eBay).

Lenovo offered Pro Series Ryzen APU small form factor PCs. Like the Lenovo ThinkCentre M715q with a 2400GE. I believe HP offered them as well with the 2400GE at some point.

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

#215

Post by arcticbull »

munificent wrote: post #193
sdenton4 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turns out the Apple tax means you're also buying the three chips thrown away to produce your one...

Waste is a factor in all production goods. Every fish you eat's price takes into account dealing with bycatch. Your wooden table's price accounts for the offcuts. It's the nature of making (or harvesting, or whatever) things.

Waste is an inherent inefficiency.

In silicon manufacturing, the inefficiency is actually pretty low specifically because of the kind of binning that Intel and AMD do, that GP was complaining about. In a fully vertically integrated system with no desire to sell outside, the waste is realized. In a less integrated system the waste is taken advantage of.

In theory capitalism should broadly encourage the elimination of waste - literally every part of the animal is used, for instance. Even the hooves make glue, and the bones to make jello.

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

#216

Post by dimitrios1 »

mschuster91 wrote: post #90
dimitrios1 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing how backwards we went from a sustainability perspective when you consider likely no one had this issue front and center as they did in the early industrial days. We used reusable metals and glasses much more. Now everything is plastic.

On the other side, just take a "Tragerl" of beer (German beer crate with 20x0.5l): - It weighs much more than a crate of 20x0.5l aluminium cans or plastic bottles - it is more voluminous: glass bottles have way thicker walls and they need plastic spacers to prevent the bottles from crashing each other, whereas cans and bottles can be shrinkwrapped just fine) - the return logistics are simpler: glass bottles and the c…

> The switch to plastics has saved lots of money and environmental pollution in logistics

Ah, but this is debatable!

https://www.wri.org/insights/planes-trains-and-big-automobil...

"Trains move 32% of goods in the United States, but generate only 6% of freight-related greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile trucks account for 40% of American freight transport and 60% of freight-related emissions."

From the beginning of the industrial period, we relied on rail and boat for logistics, and buggies for last mile deliveries, until the advent of affordable, mass produced vehicles, and the interstate system, this didn't change much. Our reliance on plastics combined with airplanes and trucks for logistics results in much greater pollution in my view.

Granted, coal was the primary fuel source for steamboats and steam engines, but sail still was common until iron boats became widespread, and still more economical for cross-sea transportation.

All this to say, as an amateur historian, in my view, this all comes to a precipice between the late 1950s and early 1960s, with the completion of the interstate highway system in the US, and DuPoint proliferating plastics in 1960s.

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

#217

Post by hajile »

tcoff91 wrote: post #164
alexhawke wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Baseless speculation: perhaps they do actually throw away chips? They only really target a premium market segment so perhaps it's not worth it to their brand to try and keep those chips.

You’ll likely see them in other products like lower end tablets or the Apple TV where lasering a core or two doesn’t matter.

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

#218

Post by jandrese »

deckard1 wrote: post #194
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…

Just to note, AMD does every single thing you blame Intel for. AMD recently dicked b350/x370 chipset owners by sending motherboard manufacturers a memo telling them not to support Zen 3 (5000 series) Ryzen CPUs on their older chipsets.[1] This was after AsRock sent out a beta BIOS which proved that 5000 series CPUs worked fine on b350 chipsets. Today, AsRock's beta BIOS still isn't on their website and it's nearly a…

The worst part is that adding ECC support should only increase the price of RAM by about 13%, which given that the RAM modules are about $50-$100 on most builds works out to $7-$13 to the total cost of the machine. Every machine should come with ECC. It's such cheap insurance. But because the chip manufacturers have to make more money by artificially segmenting the market almost nobody runs ECC on home machines.

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

#219

Post by worrycue »

vanilla_nut wrote: post #99
Guthur wrote: post #61

Lol, this stinks of PR BS. It's Intel's vertical integration that has hamstrung its chip design for about half a decade. 10nm transition was an unmitigated disaster and because of it Intel has haemorrhaged technical dominance and has only really maintained market dominance due to entrenched and slow moving decision cycles within the data centre space and to a lesser extend the consumer market. Intel will likely stabl…

Not just technical dominance — we’ve all heard of lead Intel engineers hired away to Apple/Google/Amazon/etc during this period of stagnation. How many senior engineers, staff engineers, and low-level talent in general has Intel bled in the last 5-7 years? How many of them have moved to Qualcomm, TSMC, Apple, Google, etc? At this point, I wonder if Intel is even capable of fixing their technical problems since most o…

Talent comes and goes. If other companies can hire away talent, Intel can hire them back too. If you pay enough, people will come. Intel currently seem quite willing to pay.

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

#220

Post by jvanderbot »

scoopertrooper wrote: post #210
jvanderbot wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not amoral. It's missing a market opportunity, but conflating that with morality is an interesting way of looking at it. Businesses don't owe you a product (before you pay for it) any more than you owe them loyalty after you pay for something. They will suffer when someone else offers what you want and you leave. That's the point of markets and competition.

Maybe 'amoral' is a bit strong, but I think there is something wrong with an economic system where producers destroy wealth, rather than distribute all that is produced. If it's wrong for the government to pay farmers to burn crops during a depression, then it's wrong for a monopoly to disable chip capabilities during a chip shortage.

I think you're framing the supply chain in a very personal (strawman) way.

The problem is just one of "efficiency". The production is not perfectly aligned with where people are willing to spend money. A purely efficient market exists only in theory / textbooks / Adam Smith's Treatise.

The chips that roll off a fab are not done. They aren't "burning crops". Perhaps they are abandoned (not completed) perhaps because they need to recoup or save resources to focus on finishing and shipping the working (full core) products. They aren't driving their trucks of finished products into the ocean.

Post reply on HN