Why Ivy Bridge Is Still Quad-Core?

[Skott]

Probably see hex core in a generation or two after IB. With little competition Intel is probably in no hurry. They will take the quads as far as they can first I'm guessing.

 

[MrX8503]

Thank you Captain Obvious! Care to explain how AMD can do it? Release a nice six core chip that costs about the same as their top end quad core? If Intel had real competition, you think their 6 core chip would cost 550$+?

Well, if its obvious, then I don't know why you're complaining. The Anandtech article stated valid reasons for a hexcore Ivy not existing. AMD released a quad, hex, and octocore processor and how is AMD doing now? If Intel lays waste to the competition, then their superior silicon is going to and should cost more.

AMD would charge more too if they had the performance to back it up. If you're so crazy for cores, then get yourself a Bulldozer.

 

[ed29a]

Well, if its obvious, then I don't know why you're complaining. The Anandtech article stated valid reasons for a hexcore Ivy not existing. AMD released a quad, hex, and octocore processor and how is AMD doing now? If Intel lays waste to the competition, then their superior silicon is going to and should cost more.

AMD would charge more too if they had the performance to back it up. If you're so crazy for cores, then get yourself a Bulldozer.

I am complaining because of ignorant comments like "Maybe we'll see hexcore soon, but not yet. As of right now there isn't a use for it."

 

[Edrick]

Wow, that's just pure ignorance. Because you can't see people needing 4+ cores, there can't be a use for it. I run 4+ virtual machines on my 1090T. I don't need massive speeds, just separate cores. I also don't want to spend 800$+ on a CPU + motherboard just so that I can get my work done when I can spend half of that on a competitor.

So he is ignorant because YOU are running server software with server workloads on a desktop CPU because YOU are too cheap to buy a system designed for said workload. Right.

 

[Edrick]

Another ignorant post. You do realize people do other things on their machines than a little encoding here and there that could require more cores?

And people who do such work for a living do not mind spending and extra $200-300 for a proper CPU. You are coming across as the ignorant one in this thread.

 

[Edrick]

Thank you Captain Obvious! Care to explain how AMD can do it? Release a nice six core chip that costs about the same as their top end quad core? If Intel had real competition, you think their 6 core chip would cost 550$+?

It is called performance. If AMD's 6 core chip can not beat Intel's 4 core, why would they price them more? The more I read your posts, the more I think you should maybe read some articles before you post.

 

[MrX8503]

I am complaining because of ignorant comments like "Maybe we'll see hexcore soon, but not yet. As of right now there isn't a use for it."

You can get a hexcore now! Whats stopping you from buying a SNB-E system then? Problem solved.

 

[Edrick]

You can get a hexcore now! Whats stopping you from buying a SNB-E system then? Problem solved.

He seems to want an Intel 6 core at the same price he can buy a AMD 6 core. And until then, he will complain about it and say that Intel is doing it only becuase of lack of competition.

 

[ed29a]

So he is ignorant because YOU are running server software with server workloads on a desktop CPU because YOU are too cheap to buy a system designed for said workload. Right.

Show me servers with VMWare Workstation or Virtualbox installed (hint: you won't find a non retarded company/admin doing that). I bolded the 'Workstation' for a reason. VMWare Workstation = server workload? Lay off the crackpipe, will ya.

Also, I am too cheap to buy a 550$+ CPU and 300$+ motherboard when the competition offers me something for *FAR* less that is perfectly sufficient for my needs? Whoa, hold that logic one second! What's next, you are going to call me cheap for buying a Toyota Corolla because I need to get to work each day instead of a Nissan GT-R, especially knowing that the Corolla is perfectly fine for my needs? Or or or or, you are going to call me cheap because I bought a Kindle to read books instead of an iPad? Or or or or ... never mind, you won't understand.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Thank you Captain Obvious! Care to explain how AMD can do it? Release a nice six core chip that costs about the same as their top end quad core? If Intel had real competition, you think their 6 core chip would cost 550$+?

It's called having six comparatively weak cores trying to make a viable product. Intel's top 4 core chips smoke the six core AMD in everything single & multithreaded.

Bulldozer's a $209 8-core...

 

[Puppies04]

Thank you Captain Obvious! Care to explain how AMD can do it? Release a nice six core chip that costs about the same as their top end quad core? If Intel had real competition, you think their 6 core chip would cost 550$+?

Now i'm going to educate you a little bit more seeing as you are spouting rubbish all over this thread.

*yes a IB 6 core would push prices up because they don't just take 1.5 quads and stick them together with glue. Space and time would need to be turned over to proiduce a chip that wouldn't even make 1% of intels annual turnover. Why do you think server chips cost so much....

*You say AMD can make a hex core for the same price as intels quads when you don't even understand that the price you pay has almost no bearing on what it cost the manufacturer to produce it. Intel and AMD price their chips on what the market will take. If AMD could charge the $400 they would like to for their chip because it actually performed 50% better than SB then they would, as it stands they charge a hell of a lot less and make crappy amounts of profit.

 

[Edrick]

I find it absurd that anyone would actually argue intel is not milking.

How can you say that when Intel has its Tick-Tock stratergy in place and has been pretty good at keeping it cadence going? Just because IB is not going to be 6 core on the lga1155 platform?

What percent of people who buy a SB PC actually "need" more than 8 threads? I would care of guess 5% max. And out of that 5%, how many of them would not pay the extra $200-$300 for a SB-E platform? My guess is not that many. So why would Intel create a new CPU just to market for this small group of people who are more in the "want 6 cores" as opposed to "need 6 cores". I doubt they would break even, or just kill their top end line, which also means less less income.

This is a business decision based on market conditions (and software) more than it is based on competition.

 

[Edrick]

Show me servers with VMWare Workstation or Virtualbox installed (hint: you won't find a non retarded company/admin doing that). I bolded the 'Workstation' for a reason. VMWare Workstation = server workload? Lay off the crackpipe, will ya.

SB-E is Intel's Worlstation platform. You just proved my point for me. Thank you. So I said server instead of workstation, either way it is not mainstream desktop (which is what we are discussing here). And this is taken from your sig, so I assumed you were running server applications: "Right - Desktop/Server [PhII 1090T on Ubuntu]",

Also, I am too cheap to buy a 550$+ CPU and 300$+ motherboard when the competition offers me something for *FAR* less

Wow, when did AMD put out a 6 core, 12 thread CPU with quad memory, etc, etc, that actually beat Intel's mainstread CPUs?

you are going to call me cheap because I bought a Kindle to read books instead of an iPad?

Yes I would if you started complaining about Apple not pricing the iPad the same price as the Kindle.

 

[MrX8503]

Also, I am too cheap to buy a 550$+ CPU and 300$+ motherboard when the competition offers me something for *FAR* less that is perfectly sufficient for my needs? Whoa, hold that logic one second! What's next, you are going to call me cheap for buying a Toyota Corolla because I need to get to work each day instead of a Nissan GT-R, especially knowing that the Corolla is perfectly fine for my needs? Or or or or, you are going to call me cheap because I bought a Kindle to read books instead of an iPad? Or or or or ... never mind, you won't understand.

LOL, I think someone needs to teach you a lesson on how to make an analogy. What your previous post is stating is that you want a Nissan GT-R for a Toyota Corolla price. What you're not stating is that you're buying what is sufficient for your needs. If you're buying what you need, you wouldn't be complaining about wanting a hexcore Ivy.

lol

 

[ed29a]

SB-E is Intel's Worlstation platform. You just proved my point for me. Thank you. So I said server instead of workstation, either way it is not mainstream desktop (which is what we are discussing here).

Oh because Intel calls that 'Extreme' and 'Workstation Platform' they can charge an eye and kidney for it while AMD can give you more cores for pretty damn cheap? You are delusional if you believe that Intel (1) isn't milking it (2) would charge this much if AMD offered real competition. Which was the entire point of the original AT article: Intel doesn't do IB 6 core to not render their extreme platform obsolete (read between the lines: milking it).

PS: I am waiting for you to call me a socialist scum!

 

[ncalipari]

So he is ignorant because YOU are running server software with server workloads on a desktop CPU because YOU are too cheap to buy a system designed for said workload. Right.

I'm working as a consultant for a company who owns 50.000+ i7 CPUs and is planning to buy 5000 more soon. They are in the Fortune 500 and are doing pretty well. At least I wouldn't mind a share of their profits.

 

[Puppies04]

Let me put this another way Ed... If 6 core rocks so hard why are intel trashing them on CPU sales. Every thread I see around here ends up telling people to go for intel quad core or even sometimes dual core chips. You are trying to argue that intels whole marketing department knows less about what people need than you do and you are making yourself look stupid in the process. So you need a hex core in one of your rigs. You are the minority and deserve to pay for the privilidge.

Luckily for you AMD sell a chip that because it has relativly weak single core performance is as cheap as an intel quad. You got lucky because if it didn't the price you would have to pay for it would be double. In this imaginary situation intel would very quickly release a 6 core desktop chip and price it a little higher or lower than AMDs offering depending on performance.

One last point,the only reason AMD released hex cores was because there performance sucked compared to intels. They weren't trying to do you or anyone other than their shareholders a favour they were just trying to keep revenue coming in and I guarantee 90% of those hexes they have sold are to muppets who think "oh look 6 cores that must be better for what i do" then proceed to never run a single task that wouldn't be faster on a edit.. higher clocked 4 core chip.

 

[Edrick]

Oh because Intel calls that 'Extreme' and 'Workstation Platform' they can charge an eye and kidney for it while AMD can give you more cores for pretty damn cheap? You are delusional if you believe that Intel (1) isn't milking it (2) would charge this much if AMD offered real competition. Which was the entire point of the original AT article: Intel doesn't do IB 6 core to not render their extreme platform obsolete (read between the lines: milking it).

If AMD's 6 core CPU could compete with Intel's 6 core CPU, AMD would RAISE their prices. Intel would not drop theirs. Do you think AMD enjoys making such small profit margins? They only do because they have to based on performance figures. I do not know how many times this was stated in these forums and elsewhere on the Internet.

Perhaps you are too young to remember this, but AMD used to charge $999+ for their top end CPUs, back when they were beating Intel in performance. As it stands right now, a 2600 SB CPU beats a 6 core AMD and it priced at the same point.

 

[Puppies04]

You are delusional if you believe that Intel (1) isn't milking it (2) would charge this much if AMD offered real competition.

Seriously you need to understand this...

If amd hexes performed as well as SB-E hexes they would cost the same as them.

The reason they are cheap is because the performance isnt there and the benefits of owning a hex is non existent for 99%+ of their customers. Intel isn't expensive AMD is cheap and they are destorying their profit margin just to sell products.

 

[Edrick]

If amd hexes performed as well as SB-E hexes they would cost the same as them.

+1

It is amazing how many people do not understand this simple point.

 

[ed29a]

If AMD's 6 core CPU could compete with Intel's 6 core CPU, AMD would RAISE their prices.

Economics 101 > you. Why do PC prices constantly go down year after year. You can get pretty much the same PC from many PC makers with very similar components yet prices go down. Hint: Economics at work, more precisely, capitalism at work. Something you ignore. When there is established competition in a market and two or more parties have very similar products, the price will go down. Unless there is a cartel.

Intel would not drop theirs.

Unless they engage in an illegal cartel with AMD, they will drop their prices. It's the foundation of capitalism. Again, Economics 101 > you.

Do you think AMD enjoys make such small profit margins? They only do because they have to based on performance figures. I do not know how many times this was stated in these forums and elsewhere on the Internet.

No sh*t Sherlock.

Perhaps you are too young to remember this, but AMD used to charge $999+ for their top end CPUs, back when they were beating Intel in performance. As it stand right now, a 2600 SB CPU beats a 6 core AMD and it priced at the same point.

There is a 2600 SB CPU at around 160$?

 

[MrX8503]

Oh because Intel calls that 'Extreme' and 'Workstation Platform' they can charge an eye and kidney for it while AMD can give you more cores for pretty damn cheap?

Its cheap because the performance is beyond pitiful. Go buy a Bulldozer.

 

[ed29a]

+1

It is amazing how many people do not understand this simple point.

It's amazing how many people don't understand basic capitalism.

If both companies would build similar performance processors we would have a competition level that is the same as video cards where there is a video card for pretty much every 20$ increment until you hit the king of the hill.

Right now, there is no high end competition and Intel is milking the extreme platform. Simple as that.

 

[MrX8503]

Its amazing how you don't get that AMD is trying to compete, but they can't. If their product is inferior, which it is, then its going to be cheaper.

If both companies would build similar performance processors...

lol, this isn't a game of foursquare. This is called running a business, there isn't some kind of truce pact AMD and Intel signed. Its entirely AMD's fault for not being able to compete. If AMD can't and goes under, there will be another that will raise to the challenge. It's happened before and it'll happen again.

There is a 2600 SB CPU at around 160$?

Ever heard of performance per dollar?

 

[Edrick]

Economics 101 > you

Must be. I am only going by the market trends in the CPU world over the past 10+ years as reference.

Exonomics according to ed29a: Intel is milking the market because they do not release a 6 core IB CPU (twice the performance as AMD's offering) at the $160 price range.