• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread

Page 602 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
eek2121 said:
Apparently Intel is charging extra for AVX512 and AMX. Zen 4 will likely have support for free. What is Intel thinking?
Click to expand...
They still have some of the mindset of a captive market. And no doubt there are many companies that will do nothing to fix their delusions...
 
igor_kavinski said:
All well and good, until this finds its way into the Core line-up. Dual channel? $10 please. More cache? $25. Extra cores? $50 per core.
Click to expand...

I don't see an issue with that to be honest.

Say you bought a 5900(non x) for $300(two functional chiplets that have 2 cores disable each), then you would like to upgrade to the 5950X, you can sell the used CPU and put the difference to upgrade to a $700 5950X, but if AMD give you the option to unlock four cores and OC capabilities by downloading a Firmware for $100? How is that not the best way to upgrade?

Or if Intel lets you upgrade from a 12600K to a fully functional 12900K by Firmware alone? That saves a lot of time on physically upgrading your CPU


Edit.

Remember when people used to Unlock Hexacore Phenoms while only paying for Phenom X2? What if the process got so good at binning that it allows Intel to disable features on a perfectly good CPU and sell it for a low price? They would save on having their machines laser off those features/Cores, Intel wins in manufacturing cost and the customer saves on having to purchase another CPU if they would like to upgrade while having to sell an used CPU
 
Last edited:
If only they had hearts of gold. There is potential to abuse this feature, by giving us more crippled CPUs than we are used to, so they make more money in the end.
 
nicalandia said:
I don't see an issue with that to be honest.

Say you bought a 5900(non x) for $300(two functional chiplets that have 2 cores disable each), then you would like to upgrade to the 5950X, you can sell the used CPU and put the difference to upgrade to a $700 5950X, but if AMD give you the option to unlock four cores and OC capabilities by downloading a Firmware for $100? How is that not the best way to upgrade?

Or if Intel lets you upgrade from a 12600K to a fully functional 12900K by Firmware alone? That saves a lot of time on physically upgrading your CPU
Click to expand...

AMD is not going to sell you a 5900 with defective chiplets, that is 12 core now and forever, for the same price as a 16 core part artificially disabled to 12 cores in hopes that you will one day pay to unlock those cores. The non-defective 12 core that can be unlocked to 16 core will cost more up front.

This "renting" of software and hardware is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for manufacturers if they can actually ram it down our throats. Monthly fees forever and they can raise rates whenever they need to increase revenue because they have you by the you know what.

No thanks. Been there, done that with Comcast when they gave us "free" digital adapter boxes that are currently $5/month to rent. That's why I ditched Comcast's TV service 2 years ago.

That renting "pot of gold" for manufacturers is the pot we slowly boil to death in financially.
 
eek2121 said:
Apparently Intel is charging extra for AVX512 and AMX. Zen 4 will likely have support for free. What is Intel thinking?
Click to expand...

Yeah I doubt it. More because I think OEMs would be upset. Need to think more obscure. Remember that Intel has historically put super secret instructions for specific customers in the Big Xeons. I don't know how they are locked out today but this could be a replacement for that if it means getting rid of customer specific fused chips.

That being said, being Intel you shouldn't rule anything out completely.
 
Hulk said:
AMD is not going to sell you a 5900 with defective chiplets, that is 12 core now and forever, for the same price as a 16 core part artificially disabled to 12 cores in hopes that you will one day pay to unlock those cores.
Click to expand...
You can bet that not all of the 5900 had defective chiplets, many of them are perfectly good Chiplets that had to be disabled
 
nicalandia said:
You can bet that not all of the 5900 had defective chiplets, many of them are perfectly good Chiplets that had to be disabled
Click to expand...

Maybe. But some might be 13 core, or 14 core, or 15 core, or 16 core with some cores only do very low clocks.

We'll never know.
 
It could work out for the customer in theory. 90% sure it won't in practice though.

I'd probably consider bumping up a 5600X or 5900X if I regretted buying that specific model, or had to keep it for a longer time than planned.

6 cores is getting troublesome for some use cases and getting 7c/14t or 8c/16t for a small sum and delaying a bigger purchase doesn't sound that bad.
 
And people wonder why we hate Intel most of the time ! Charging extra for whats already in the chip. They care about nothing but Money. I hope AMD can change that eventually through competition. In servers they are the king, but too many are unconvinced that AMD is better (stupid managers, I know, I retired from a company that had data center managers like that).

This post is only referencing servers...
 
Last edited:
Markfw said:
I hope AMD can change that eventually through competition.
Click to expand...

They'll need more capacity. Intel knows that, at least right now, AMD can sell out everything they make and still leave a significant share of the server market for Intel to fill in the gaps. Right now Intel is suffering most from their own production shortfalls (see: IceLake-SP delays/short supplies, and Sapphire Rapids delays). It's forced Intel to sell more old product at a shrinking profit margin since it doesn't command the same premium that is did several years ago when it was new.

Until someone - or a coalition of competitors - can threaten 50% or more of the server market, Intel is going to continue to try these schemes to increase the overall cost to own and operate hardware.
 
This is problematic not just from a consumer perspective, but an ecosystem one as well. Now you can't just assume that SPR will support those ISA features, further fracturing the codebase.

This is the kind of stuff that sales folk drool over, but creates real headaches for the customers in the short term and the business in the long. And Intel is in no position to be so callous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top