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

111–120 of 344 posts

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

#111

Post by KronisLV »

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…

I agree in principle, but it's pretty obvious that this would be bad for their profit margins and as a consequence wouldn't happen.

After all, making your consumers buy the more expensive versions of your product just because they need one of its features is a sound business decision.

Otherwise people will use the cheaper and lower end versions if they only need these features - like i'm currently using 200GEs for my homelab servers, because i do not require any additional functionality that the low power 2018 chip doesn't provide.

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

#112

Post by cptskippy »

mizzack wrote: post #101
bserge wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cost saving would've been to get rid of the IHS entirely. Their mobile chips work fine without them, I don't really understand why they're a thing for desktop processors. AMD uses them too, so there must be a reason... is it because they're afraid of improper installation breaking them? That's on the user. The weight of the desktop heatsinks? Small changes to latch design should suffice. Or you can have a metal space…

> is it because they're afraid of improper installation breaking them? Yes. This was an issue back in the Athlon Thunderbird days. "It's on the user" doesn't work as an argument when all of your large desktop/server OEMs notice a large uptick in failure rate post-assembly.

Looking back it seems so barbaric.

I remember how they briefly tried those black foam sticker pads in the corners of the substrate before acquiescing and using the IHS.

At some point they realized they could do better than a heatsink mounting system that involved trying to balance a heavy metal object on a small pedestal while trying to hook a tensioned spring to a clip you couldn't see by exerting tremendous downward force with a flathead screwdriver. I guess those motherboard return rates finally got to them.

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

#113

Post by awestroke »

KronisLV wrote: post #111
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…

I agree in principle, but it's pretty obvious that this would be bad for their profit margins and as a consequence wouldn't happen. After all, making your consumers buy the more expensive versions of your product just because they need one of its features is a sound business decision. Otherwise people will use the cheaper and lower end versions if they only need these features - like i'm currently using 200GEs for my…

Well, now they are losing to AMD, so what does that tell you about it being a sound busineas decision?

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

#114

Post by xuki »

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…

Yeah, I've switched to AMD Ryzen 5k for my dedicated servers. They're faster and cheaper than Xeon, they support ECC which is the only reasons I need Xeon previously.

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

#115

Post by philistine »

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.

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 both.

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

#116

Post by elorant »

mschuster91 wrote: post #95
elorant wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The processor is very efficient. Four cores at 3,6GHz, and can support up to 128GB of RAM. Even AMD can't beat that.

Why would you want 128GB of RAM without ECC support, something totally mainstream at AMD?

I have ECC RAM on my servers. I don't care for it on my desktop rig.

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

#117

Post by blackhaz »

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…

Business features are tied to software/hardware features. They want piece of your business.

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

#118

Post by CountSessine »

KronisLV wrote: post #111
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…

I agree in principle, but it's pretty obvious that this would be bad for their profit margins and as a consequence wouldn't happen. After all, making your consumers buy the more expensive versions of your product just because they need one of its features is a sound business decision. Otherwise people will use the cheaper and lower end versions if they only need these features - like i'm currently using 200GEs for my…

I agree but this is a game you can play with your customers when they actually want what you’re selling and you have market power. When you’re losing ground and customers are leaving the shop, it’s time to cut the bullshit and give people what they want.

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

#119

Post by freemint »

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…

I don't want to pay more for cheap CPUs such that they have ECC. High prices on ECC subsidize cheaper parts without ECC.

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

#120

Post by freemint »

mnadkvlb wrote: post #91
dippersauce wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before M1 my only exposure to ARM has been low-power SBCs and Android devices, and the experience was mediocre in the “just works” department. Poor hardware support, and a lack of proprietary software support. Performance was also lacking. Apple’s tight integration and high-end CPUs have resulted in a vastly better experience, but I want to have more options than just macOS and MacBooks. I think we’re trending in the…

I have tried buying microsoft arm computers since the last two gens now both the surface prox x with qualcomm sq1 and sq2 as well as another yoga book 5g. Windows performance on these platforms is so trash, you feel like going back ten years on ultrabooks. Even their own apps are not optimized or some like visual studio didnt even run. Compare that to x86 builtin emulation on apple m1, it performs so close to native…

Downhill compared to Win7, yes. Downhill ever since, no. Windows 8 was worse then 10.
Post reply on HN