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

241–250 of 344 posts

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

#241

Post by deckard1 »

officeplant wrote: post #214
deckard1 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

by desktop I meant non-integrated/embedded. A standalone CPU you could buy and plop into any standard ATX/mATX/ITX motherboard.

But even if you have a Pro embedded, it doesn't mean you get ECC. My Lenovo ThinkPad has a PRO 4750U. But they solder on one non-ECC DIMM. So it's rather pointless. Plus, it's SODIMM. So that's yet another factor at play when choosing RAM.

The only real exception that I know of is the recent 5000G APUs may support ECC. But this seems to be borderline rumor/speculation at this point. Level1Techs made the claim on YouTube and were supposed to have a follow up. Not sure if that ever happened.

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

#242

Post by qweqwweqwe-90i »

gleenn wrote: post #238
dragontamer wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel and AMD __literally__ sell those broken chips to the open marketplace, recouping at least some of the costs (or possibly getting a profit from them). Apple probably does the same strategy PS3 did: create a 1-PPE + 8-SPE chip, but sell it as a 1-PPE + 7-SPE chip (assume one breaks). This increases yields, and it means that all 7-SPE + 8-SPE chips can be sold. 6-SPE-chips (and below) are thrown away, which is a s…

Apple sells a 7 core and 8 core version of their M1 chips. Maybe Intel and AMD ship CPUs with even more cores disabled but it's not like Apple doesn't do this at all.

Apple doesnt sell chips at all. Next.

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

#243

Post by qweqwweqwe-90i »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #232
adamweld wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

13% is huge in a low margin, highly competitive field. the price difference comes down more to economies of scale and less to artificial segmentation.

But it's 13% of a tiny component of an overall system. Not the same as 13% of the total cost. Sure, if you're only buying memory modules, maybe you would go for the $7 savings. But as part of an overall system, nobody is even going to notice.

I notice so there goes your argument down the drain.

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

#244

Post by techrat »

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…

> 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.

Except in the case with the Pentium special edition 2 cores and i3 parts, Intel actually designed a separate two core part that wouldn't have the benefit of re-enabling cores among hobbyists.

And then there's the artificial segmentation by disabling Xeon support among consumer boards... even though the Xeon branded parts were identical to i7s (with the GPU disabled) and adding (or removing) a pin on a socket between generations even though the chipset supports the CPU itself (and the CPU runs on the socket fine with an adapter.)

Intel definitely did everything they could to make it as confusing as possible.

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

#245

Post by tw04 »

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…

>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 year after they put it out.

And they stated their reasoning: The average AMD 400 Series motherboard has key technical advantages over the average AMD 300 Series motherboard, including: VRM configuration, memory trace topology, and PCB layers

Which is entirely reasonable, and accurate if you look at the quality of the average X370 motherboard compared to 400+.

And no, AMD does not do everything I described. Which Ryzen model doesn't have SMT? I see it on the 3, the 5, the 7, and the 9. Which model doesn't have turbo boost? I see it on the 3, the 5, the 7, and the 9.

As for ECC: I don't believe I said they're perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than what Intel has to offer...

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

#246

Post by omegalulw »

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…

While I agree with your general sentiment, I don't agree that you should expect Intel to hand out features for free. That's what competition is for.

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

#247

Post by rozap »

brianwawok wrote: post #162
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.

Wait till you find out that two people side by side on an airplane may pay 10x or more difference in ticket price, for the same ride.

Wait until they find out about the fact that all new BMWs come with heated seats, but you need to pay a monthly subscription to have them enabled.

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

#248

Post by omegalulw »

swalsh wrote: post #44
lvl100 wrote: post #25

Intel is NOT competing against AMD only. In the past couple of years, we’ve seen a number of big tech companies developing their own chips. Focusing on AMD would be quite myopic from a strategic pov. This market is only getting more competitive. Either you compete on performance or price.

After purchasing an M1, i'm starting to realize how viable ARM is as a main platform. Nearly everything I want to run on it has a natively built version, and runs great on it. I could easily move anything I've built to a server running ARM with little frustration. I think that may be a bigger part of the coming future.

I think we should look at one step further - RISC-V. Open source is the best way to ensure consumers don't get shafted by someone doing the Intel model again or Apple keeping M1 limited to their devices.

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

#249

Post by phendrenad2 »

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 more expensive chips subsidize the cheaper ones. If they put ECC in low-end models, they would have to charge more for them, because fewer people would buy the high-end models.

Also, there's some cross contamination between price point and market segment here. Nobody just buys a CPU, they buy a CPU wrapped in a laptop. So Intel's real customers are laptop manufacturers, not you. So the low-end chips have to appeal to a model that the laptop vendors want to introduce. That takes the form of thin & light laptops (or low-energy-usage "green" desktops for office workers).

Adding ECC support adds heat and cost and die size. All things the thin & light market do not want under any circumstances.

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

#250

Post by drewg123 »

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…

And similarly with memory speed segmentation in the Xeon line. I'm kicking the tires on a ice lake 8352V, and I was disappointed (but not at all surprised) to learn that it is running its 3200 memory at 2933
Post reply on HN