Smart idea? <EDIT: OK yeah it's not a smart idea>

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
This will probably sound crazy, but, what if these CPU and graphics card manufacturers did this:

- mass produce their best product design to date
- instead of crippling certain products which in many cases saves them no money whatsoever, leave everything intact
- sell only a single product line - e.g. intel would only sell P4 3.2C CPUs
- sell their product for a fair price that the market will bear...again, everything will have the same price

I posted this after reading about some of the things that AMD and ATi are doing lately to "cripple" their products. One would think that they would do things like produce their value line on smaller dies and such, but no, they just cripple their high-end produts. Look at the X800PRO - it's a crippled XT. Look at the new Athlon XP chips coming out for S754 - they're crippled A64s. Look at all of the "SE" branded ATi cards. In all of these examples, I'm almost positive that this "crippling" process saves absolutely no money to the manufacturers in the vast majority of cases.

Another thing to think about is all that waste. Maybe Greenpeace should jump on something like this. The biggest waste that I know of in the computer industry is how intel changes their socket layout three times per year. It's criminal! They are forcing people to buy new motherboards with intel chipsets. The last time I checked, computer motherboards were a huge environmental hazard with all of the capacitors they have and such.

I know you guys are going to flame me for this post, and I agree, in many ways it may be considered somewhat rediculous/ludicrous. It's interesting to think about though, and I'm sure at least some of my points are very valid.

*FLAMESUIT EQUIPPED*
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
you think if they did that they'd sell it to us at the low low price we want?

it'd be a monopoly...and then I'd have to start supporting VIa and hope the Epia starts matching the original Athlon in terms of preformance ;)
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
Magomago: No, you obviously don't understand my post. Maybe read it over again, it should make sense (I hope). I don't want to merge the companies together, I'm just suggesting that each of them should have their own single product line. One product. That's it that's all.

For example:

- a celeron costs $80 to buy, and intel sells 1,000,000 of them
- a P4 2.4C costs $150 to buy, and intel sells 200,000 of them
- a P4 3.2C costs $300 to buy, and intel sells 20,000 of them

It would all add up to a total revenue of:

$30,000,000 (celeron)
$80,000,000 (P4 2.4C)
$6,000,000 (P4 3.2C)
_____________________
$116,000,000

So, if you divide that figure by the 1,220,000 CPUs they sold, it works out to an average cost of $95 per CPU. To me that's genius. It's barely above the cost of the celeron, but it's a top-of-line CPU.

Now, I realize that I didn't really do my math scientifically and I have no idea how many of each CPU intel sells. That said, it sorta proves the possibility of what I'm suggesting.
 

oldman420

Platinum Member
May 22, 2004
2,179
0
0
one of the main things that drives quality in any product line is compatition this creates the "mine is better than yours" mentality which creates better products. if there were only one brand there would not be a lot more innovation in the market
 

Bovinicus

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2001
3,145
0
0
I think I'm the only one who actually read his post. Granted, the subject is very misleading, but he is not suggesting that those 4 companies merge into one. I see what you're saying, but it will never work that way. There is always going to be someone who wants to pay less than that average figure, and there is always going to be someone who is willing to pay more for something better. If the goal of these companies was nothing more than to provide people with good products and push the industry forward, then your idea might work. Their goal is to make money, therefore they have to have products in different price ranges for people who can afford them.
 

Wingznut

Elite Member
Dec 28, 1999
16,968
2
0
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Magomago: No, you obviously don't understand my post. Maybe read it over again, it should make sense (I hope). I don't want to merge the companies together, I'm just suggesting that each of them should have their own single product line. One product. That's it that's all.

For example:

- a celeron costs $80 to buy, and intel sells 1,000,000 of them
- a P4 2.4C costs $150 to buy, and intel sells 200,000 of them
- a P4 3.2C costs $300 to buy, and intel sells 20,000 of them

It would all add up to a total revenue of:

$30,000,000 (celeron)
$80,000,000 (P4 2.4C)
$6,000,000 (P4 3.2C)
_____________________
$116,000,000

So, if you divide that figure by the 1,220,000 CPUs they sold, it works out to an average cost of $95 per CPU. To me that's genius. It's barely above the cost of the celeron, but it's a top-of-line CPU.

Now, I realize that I didn't really do my math scientifically and I have no idea how many of each CPU intel sells. That said, it sorta proves the possibility of what I'm suggesting.
  • Consumers want choices, and you are suggesting they accept less choices?
  • You would alienate the consumers who want a cpu at the $200 price point (and every other price point you left out).
  • What would Intel do with the P4's that bin at 2.8ghz... Lock them in at 2.4ghz?
As I'm sure you already realize, you are exagerrating about the socket changes... Neither Intel nor AMD change their sockets three times a year.

Also (on that note), the overwhelming majority of PC users don't upgrade their motherboards/cpu's. They purchase entire PC's when they want/need a better one.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
I'm assuming you are say that each company sells the high end product for a little more than the average proce of the whole product line.

You cant do that because yields on the high end are much lower than the low end. so instead of 3800+ amds, we'd get 3000+ chips or something...
Also Ati likes to but the crippled tech on the smaller process cuz it's cheaper to make and the clocks are lower so they can get yields up and then transition it to the high end.
It's not good for profit margins, not good for performance and not good for product lines.
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
Originally posted by: Wingznut
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Magomago: No, you obviously don't understand my post. Maybe read it over again, it should make sense (I hope). I don't want to merge the companies together, I'm just suggesting that each of them should have their own single product line. One product. That's it that's all.

For example:

- a celeron costs $80 to buy, and intel sells 1,000,000 of them
- a P4 2.4C costs $150 to buy, and intel sells 200,000 of them
- a P4 3.2C costs $300 to buy, and intel sells 20,000 of them

It would all add up to a total revenue of:

$30,000,000 (celeron)
$80,000,000 (P4 2.4C)
$6,000,000 (P4 3.2C)
_____________________
$116,000,000

So, if you divide that figure by the 1,220,000 CPUs they sold, it works out to an average cost of $95 per CPU. To me that's genius. It's barely above the cost of the celeron, but it's a top-of-line CPU.

Now, I realize that I didn't really do my math scientifically and I have no idea how many of each CPU intel sells. That said, it sorta proves the possibility of what I'm suggesting.
  • Consumers want choices, and you are suggesting they accept less choices?
  • You would alienate the consumers who want a cpu at the $200 price point (and every other price point you left out).
  • What would Intel do with the P4's that bin at 2.8ghz... Lock them in at 2.4ghz?
As I'm sure you already realize, you are exagerrating about the socket changes... Neither Intel nor AMD change their sockets three times a year.

Also (on that note), the overwhelming majority of PC users don't upgrade their motherboards/cpu's. They purchase entire PC's when they want/need a better one.

What if people cannot afford $95 but can only afford $80 as well.
Then those who coul donly afford the lower end stuff wouldn't be able to afford anything, because for each component the price would be higher.
 

EeyoreX

Platinum Member
Oct 27, 2002
2,864
0
0
Smart idea?
No. Would you want to live in a world where you can have a Big Mac or a Whopper? Ford Explorer or Chevy Blazer? Wal-Mart brand jeans or Gap jeans? No, you probably wouldn't. You want to choose based on features, price and performance.

\Dan
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
If you read GH and Video regularly, you'll see there are buyers at every price point being offered. For example with video cards people buy $50, $75, $100, $150, $200, $300.

If the choices from vendor A were only (say) $50, $150, $300 then either
(a) the buyer would go to vendor B for the in-between card, -or-
(b) the buyer would buy the next cheaper than the in-between more often than the next higher.

Both result in lost revenue, (a) in particular loses the entire sale.
 

Davegod

Platinum Member
Nov 26, 2001
2,874
0
76
yeah it might work...

In north korea. Aint going to happen anywhere capitalist-orientated, anyway who'd want that?

FWIW, lower speed/less cache chips and whatnot are often not an intentionally crippled faster chip, theyre a faster chip that has been crippled due to defect. I'm sure it happens deliberately fairly often, but true production cost reasons also apply.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
Yeah OK fine so you guys are right. I'm just irritated that these companies cripple perfectly good CPUs/GPUs due to their own greed. Greenpeace should look into these matters, especially the socket changes. If they did I'm sure they would propose an intel boycott.
 

randumb

Platinum Member
Mar 27, 2003
2,324
0
0
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Yeah OK fine so you guys are right. I'm just irritated that these companies cripple perfectly good CPUs/GPUs due to their own greed. Greenpeace should look into these matters, especially the socket changes. If they did I'm sure they would propose an intel boycott.
Greenpeace+Computers? :confused:
 

Wingznut

Elite Member
Dec 28, 1999
16,968
2
0
Originally posted by: randumb
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Yeah OK fine so you guys are right. I'm just irritated that these companies cripple perfectly good CPUs/GPUs due to their own greed. Greenpeace should look into these matters, especially the socket changes. If they did I'm sure they would propose an intel boycott.
Greenpeace+Computers? :confused:
I read in another thread that Intel clubs baby seals.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
Consumers want choices, and you are suggesting they accept less choices?
I would give them three choices:
-buy a high-end CPU for $90
-buy a high-end CPU for $90
-buy a high-end CPU for $90

It's alot better than today's choice for the high-end: buy a high-end CPU for $800.

You would alienate the consumers who want a cpu at the $200 price point (and every other price point you left out). [*]What would Intel do with the P4's that bin at 2.8ghz... Lock them in at 2.4ghz?

Well, if you read my post, the main thing that I'm upset about is the "crippling" of otherwise perfectly functional hardware. Speed binning is fair game in my books. I suppose since people must have choice, the speed binning would solve this. The problem is that AMD/intel would abuse this and make an enormous range in CPU speeds like we have today. The tbred-b core from AMD is a perfect example. You're telling me that the CPUs made on AMD's 0.13 micron process naturally vary in performance from 1433mhz(1700+) all the way up to 2200mhz(3200+)? It doesn't make sense to me. That's basically double the PR rating.

As I'm sure you already realize, you are exagerrating about the socket changes... Neither Intel nor AMD change their sockets three times a year.

Yes, I am exaggerating but my point remains and it's a very difficult one to argue with. AMD and intel do not need to change sockets. They could probably go 10 years at a time with the same socket. The sole reason that they switch it is to force people to upgrade, or in AMD's recent case it's to disallow people from upgrading "mainstream" hardware up to "high-end" hardware. Intel does generally change sockets around once per year by the way, and AMD has gotten just about as bad lately. Hopefully the S939 will be a repeat of Socket-A.

Also (on that note), the overwhelming majority of PC users don't upgrade their motherboards/cpu's. They purchase entire PC's when they want/need a better one.

That's because of what I just wrote about the sockets. They don't upgrade typically because they CAN'T, not because they don't want to! I just repaired a computer for a client of mine, and he had a 1.5ghz P4. He asked me about upgrading his CPU. He was very discouraged to find out that he can no longer buy a CPU compatible with his motherboard brand new at a local computer store. If he could have upgraded, I'm sure he would have. I could list about five other people I know of who had similar things to this happen.

If you could drop a 500HP engine for $1,000 into your Honda Civic to make it just as fast as a brand new 500HP Honda Civic that costs $20,000, which would you buy? I know that's a little exaggerated, but it's an accurate comparison IMO.
 

jhurst

Senior member
Mar 29, 2004
663
0
0
Having multiple product lines is essential for every company. To suggest that they would make equal revenue by having one product line is ridiculous. Not to mention that it costs more to produce a Pentium chip compared to a Celeron (R+D, marketing included). And if one company isn't going to give the consumer a choice, another would come along that would.

I think consumers are happier with a choice, and I doubt they worry about these companies "greed". Every company is in for a profit, that is why they do what they do. I see that you live in the land of Socialism, so maybe you don't quite understand that. Your argument is not only impractical, but it also just isn't true.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
Originally posted by: jhurst
I see that you live in the land of Socialism, so maybe you don't quite understand that. Your argument is not only impractical, but it also just isn't true.

Was that supposed to be some kind of an insult aimed towards Canadians? I won't even go there with you...it would be too easy. How much does heart surgery cost down there again? Oh, and prescription medication?

Canada was an open free-market democratic society, very similar to the United States the last time I checked. As a matter of fact, our economy is doing much better than yours ATM AFAIK.

But whatever, this isn't a political debate, you suddenly decided to hijack this thread and turn it into one unfortunately.

What I am proposing has nothing to do with communism, socialism, or the price of tea in China. It has to do with eliminating waste in computer hardware manufacturing. Crippling hardware=waste IMO.

I will grant you all that there needs to be a variation in products, for obvious reasons. You should all agree, however, that needless crippling (read: no $$$ savings) is a waste and should be eliminated.

<EDIT: I'm sorry if that came across as harsh/rude/crass. I have the utmost respect for Americans and the U.S. in general.>
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Some of the parts that do not pass the tests to be the top of the line product get to live as lesser products. An Opteron 246 doesn't pass all of the quality assurance tests? Take out half of the cache and push it as an Athlon 64.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
Originally posted by: jhurst
it costs more to produce a Pentium chip compared to a Celeron (R+D, marketing included)

How about without R+D included? The manufacturing cost is identical. The Celeron has no R+D budget, they simply disable most of the cache, how hard is that to figure out? Marketing probably costs the same for both.
 

jhurst

Senior member
Mar 29, 2004
663
0
0
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: jhurst
it costs more to produce a Pentium chip compared to a Celeron (R+D, marketing included)

How about without R+D included? The manufacturing cost is identical. The Celeron has no R+D budget, they simply disable most of the cache, how hard is that to figure out? Marketing probably costs the same for both.

Oh so you don't think Intel has separate engineering teams for the Pentium and Celeron lines? Yea they share alot of the same technology, but they are still different in more ways than just cache. And marketing, how many Celeron commercials do you see compared to Pentium ads? Huge difference. Probably one of the reasons the Pentium costs so much more. All I am saying is that there is a purpose for each class of processor, and I think those purposes are well justified. Does someone really need 512kb of L2 cache if all they plan on using their computer for is email and web surfing? No, then why should they pay a premium for the "top-end" Pentium class?
 

Wingznut

Elite Member
Dec 28, 1999
16,968
2
0
I would give them three choices:
-buy a high-end CPU for $90
-buy a high-end CPU for $90
-buy a high-end CPU for $90

It's alot better than today's choice for the high-end: buy a high-end CPU for $800.
Hell, why stop at cpu's?
Yes, I am exaggerating but my point remains and it's a very difficult one to argue with. AMD and intel do not need to change sockets. They could probably go 10 years at a time with the same socket. The sole reason that they switch it is to force people to upgrade, or in AMD's recent case it's to disallow people from upgrading "mainstream" hardware up to "high-end" hardware. Intel does generally change sockets around once per year by the way, and AMD has gotten just about as bad lately. Hopefully the S939 will be a repeat of Socket-A.
Here, you are very wrong. With each socket change, comes along many enhancements.

A couple of years ago, Anand wrote an excellent article on a packaging technology that Intel is working on... The Future of CPU Packaging: Intel's BBUL
That's because of what I just wrote about the sockets. They don't upgrade typically because they CAN'T, not because they don't want to!
Like I said, the incredible majority of customers (both business and personal) do not care to open their PC and upgrade individual parts... Just like they don't build their own. This has nothing to do with sockets.
Remember that us enthusiasts are just a tiny demographic of the computer world. :)
 

SilentRunning

Golden Member
Aug 8, 2001
1,493
0
76
Originally posted by: Wingznut
I read in another thread that Intel clubs baby seals.

NOOOOOOOO......I :heart: baby harp seals.....please not baby harp seals.


And no not a smart idea.
 

McCarthy

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,567
0
76
Not a workable idea, but I get the frustration. We are a niche market, and yet there are SO many choices out there it's a part time job to keep up. Enough to make me go from talking to friends about their choices and just tell them to buy a Dell - which I might do next time around myself.

One product at a time won't work. But I wonder if the level of choices we have now is really a benefit either - to the consumer or to bottom lines. Not so much in CPUs, but video cards..gah, gotta pick a company, then find a model, then figure out which one of a half dozen variations of that model are best and then go price it only to find that model isn't carried by your favorite store....

It's enough to make me club a baby seal. But I won't.
 

Matthias99

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2003
8,808
0
0
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Consumers want choices, and you are suggesting they accept less choices?
I would give them three choices:
-buy a high-end CPU for $90
-buy a high-end CPU for $90
-buy a high-end CPU for $90

It's alot better than today's choice for the high-end: buy a high-end CPU for $800.

I see the flaw in your logic; you assume they CAN produce a high-end CPU for $90 (or, at least, quite a few of them).

For example:

- a celeron costs $80 to buy, and intel sells 1,000,000 of them
- a P4 2.4C costs $150 to buy, and intel sells 200,000 of them
- a P4 3.2C costs $300 to buy, and intel sells 20,000 of them

It would all add up to a total revenue of:

$30,000,000 (celeron)
$80,000,000 (P4 2.4C)
$6,000,000 (P4 3.2C)
_____________________
$116,000,000

So, if you divide that figure by the 1,220,000 CPUs they sold, it works out to an average cost of $95 per CPU. To me that's genius. It's barely above the cost of the celeron, but it's a top-of-line CPU.

Now, I realize that I didn't really do my math scientifically and I have no idea how many of each CPU intel sells. That said, it sorta proves the possibility of what I'm suggesting.

I think your numbers are probably not all that far off the mark (at least in terms of relative sales). However, the picture you're painting suggests that Intel produced 1.2M P43.2C CPUs and 'crippled' 99% of them. But what if only, say, 10% of the CPUs they produce will run at that speed? So for every million CPUs they produce (at the same static cost -- say, $50), when they speed bin them they actually get:

100,000 P43.2Cs
300,000 P42.4Cs
300,000 P42.0Bs
200,000 Celerons
100,000 duds (don't work at all)

Now, I'm obviously making these numbers up, but clearly you can see that if this was the case, there's no way they could survive by selling only P43.2Cs -- the yields wouldn't be good enough. Producing a million of them would require running 10,000,000 dies, at a cost of $500,000,000 -- and then you'd be paying $500 apiece even at cost. What they would have to do is to sell something well below 'top of the line', to ensure that their yields are good enough. Would you be happy if only sold the P42.0B, but at $90?