They do this because of production requirements. The Demand for cheaper chips always outweighs the demand for higher end chips. So you bin down meet that demand. Script flips on these 28c dies as on the Server market that needs these types of CPU's the upper end has higher demand. I think Intel will be making these wafers just for the handful of 28c dies they can get just to meet demand. But for a 1600x and 2600x yeah 80% of them are probably working 8 core dies.
However, Intel is caught in a difficult situation where they are having to make all of their products on the same node and they don’t want to give AMD any quarter in any category.
HP is getting special love from Intel IMO. Some are saying they received less Xeon chips from Intel compared to other companies leading to 13% loss in their market share. Hence HP is recommending Epyc more now.Looks like the price hike is hitting all of Europe.
Mindfactory is seeing even worse price increases of Intel chips at 50% average. And consumer sales are moving over to AMD. Intel is probably trying to keep their larger OEMs satisfied, mainly at the high end, but even my new HP Zbook ordered by my company is being pushed back further and further as well due to supply constraints of the Intel chip.
The server market is no different than any other. It’s a more expensive product, but not a luxury product.
Look at the cost difference between Intel’s top bin server chips and what’s below them. Losing 4 cores off the full 28 cuts the price in half and you get a clock bump on that cut chip that makes it about 93% of the theoretical performance.
The problem is that these 28 core dies are massive and that’s okay if you’re making your mainstream product on the new node and have a lot of spare capacity on your old, but mature node. However, Intel is caught in a difficult situation where they are having to make all of their products on the same node and they don’t want to give AMD any quarter in any category.
Outside of APUs, AMD only has to fab one (1) die. Their ability to adjust to varying demand is much quicker than Intel. Just fab the die and adjust the packaging step to the product you want.
The server market is no different than any other. It’s a more expensive product, but not a luxury product.
Look at the cost difference between Intel’s top bin server chips and what’s below them. Losing 4 cores off the full 28 cuts the price in half and you get a clock bump on that cut chip that makes it about 93% of the theoretical performance.
The problem is that these 28 core dies are massive and that’s okay if you’re making your mainstream product on the new node and have a lot of spare capacity on your old, but mature node. However, Intel is caught in a difficult situation where they are having to make all of their products on the same node and they don’t want to give AMD any quarter in any category.
No, in this market license cost can be majority of the cost, so even if the cpu was twice as expensive but can deliver 30% of more performance for the targeted application, they will will choose the most expensive one, this is why server part can be so expensive because realistically software cost sometimes can be more insane
Nope. Wrong. A couple of grand makes little difference in the long run. Performance/Power/Density matters more so once you get up to this point demand is going higher on a 28c product than the 26, 24, 22 core versions.
All of that comes down to the amount of computational power needed, space availability, cooling costs, etc. At a certain point, the chip with the most cores is no longer worth it. Otherwise Intel would simply increase the price further since the demand is so much greater. Intel would have no incentive not to raise prices until they balance demand against the supply for their inventory. They maximize profits and they don't end up getting stuck with unwanted parts.
Also, if you're on a per core licensing cost model, more cores isn't necessarily better if the fewer cores can be clocked much higher, especially if licensing costs are high relative to costs for rack space, cooling, etc. Obviously you still always want as few defects as possible on a chip. You can always artificially bin a good chip, but you can't move the other direction.
Your points only work in a vacuum where these are the only dies Intel makes. They have LCC HCC and XCC dies.
The reason Intel is getting all super worried is probably specifically because the 28c parts are demands way exceed production
I think the 8156 has to be the result of bad dies. It makes absolutely no sense at all for anyone to buy such a chip.
The 8158 is exactly the same price and you get 12 cores at 3 ghz.
I’m not sure what what needs a Xeon Platinum as there are other low core Xeon chips with high clocks and much lower clock speeds. There’s a 4C/8T Xeon Gold for about one-fifth the price, so I imagine it’s a niche chip. But Intel knows more than we do about all of their customers and their needs.
Yeah, if you are buying a 4 core Xeon because of per core costs, then it seems unlikely that you need or want the ability to add 3 or 7 more CPUs.The Gold one is basically the same chip, but it only has 4S and 2 UPI links.
Yeah, if you are buying a 4 core Xeon because of per core costs, then it seems unlikely that you need or want the ability to add 3 or 7 more CPUs.
There are too many better choices for the 8156 to make any sense, imo.
If they can make more money selling one of those at $7,000 than as a 24-core 8160 at $4,700, why would they not do so?
RCP? I'm afraid my google-fu is not up to the task.. . . Intel's RCPs . . .
RCP? I'm afraid my google-fu is not up to the task.
I guess it's worth re-iterating that Intel's RCPs are extremely fake. The 8156 is probably way cheaper than something than a 8160 for an OEM to buy.