Why Ivy Bridge Is Still Quad-Core?

[Edrick]

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.

Are you really that ignorant of the fact that AMD charged $999 for their top of the line CPUs back in the '03-'04 timeframe? You keep saying one thing that goes agaisnt everything we have seen in the market to this point.

 

[ed29a]

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

Care to explain video game market then?

Oh and market trend in a market with a monopolist that has abused its monopoly power is not a good reference. Again, Economics 101 > you.

 

[Puppies04]

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.

Remind me how much a 980x cost when it came out, now tell me what a 3960x costs now. My point>your point

 

[Edrick]

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.

Explain how AMD and Nvidia keep releasing video cards at the $499 price point year after year. And there is very good competiton between them. According to you, those prices should drop. So I should be able to buy a GTX580 for well under $499 today, 1 year after launch. But guess what, I can't.

 

[Puppies04]

Ok maybe not the best example as the 980x didnt have much competition and neither does the 3960x but putting price drops down to competition only when factors like decreased manufacturing costs and larger customer base exist is only half the story.

Also on everything but paper Intel and AMD are running an illegal cartel. One company prices a chip then the other prices their later offering higher or lower based on its performance compared to it. It has nothing to do with manufacturing costs or profit margins they get as much as they can and I guarantee you is AMD released a serious competitior to SB-E tomoorrw even though the prices would come down a bit Intel would just release a SB-EE (extreme enthusiast) chip priced at that magical $1000 mark again. No matter what happens there will always be someone who has to have a faster rig than almost everyone else and both companies love preying on them. At the moment though only intel get to eat that cake.

 

[MrX8503]

Care to explain video game market then?

Oh and market trend in a market with a monopolist that has abused its monopoly power is not a good reference. Again, Economics 101 > you.

Intel has been giving AMD a thrashing of a lifetime ever since the debut of Conroe....and yet Intel still priced their CPUs accordingly. So far, we have been really lucky that CPUs have been affordable.

As for the GPU market....there are GPUs costing upwards of $600. You want SLI or crossfire with that?

 

[ed29a]

Ok maybe not the best example as the 980x didnt have much competition and neither does the 3960x but putting price drops down to competition only when factors like decreased manufacturing costs and larger customer base exist is only half the story.

Also on everything but paper Intel and AMD are running an illegal cartel. One company prices a chip then the other prices their later offering higher or lower based on its performance compared to it. It has nothing to do with manufacturing costs or profit margins they get as much as they can and I guarantee you is AMD released a serious competitior to SB-E tomoorrw even though the prices would come down a bit Intel would just release a SB-EE (extreme enthusiast) chip priced at that magical $1000 mark again. No matter what happens there will always be someone who has to have a faster rig than almost everyone else and both companies love preying on them. At the moment though only intel get to eat that cake.

See Edrick, someone understands Economics 101. And yes, competition is only half the reasons why prices will go down.

If AMD had Bulldozer matching or coming close to SB-E performance, they would put immense pressure on Intel if they had priced it below Intel's offering. Then, Intel would had no choice but to lower their prices or lose sales. Maybe they would collude to fix prices (which is illegal just as abusing a monopoly is illegal) but that is another issue.

If you look at a healthy market like smartphones, there are equal offerings for most market segments: iPhone 3GS, 4, 4S all with variable capacity, processor speeds, features and memory. Same thing as video card market, from a crappy Radeon 6300some to a 6990, there are SKUs for every possible market segment because the companies are ferociously to get customers.

But, because the x86 processor is an unhealthy market, Intel can do whatever they want with features and prices. 2500K has Intel 3000HD yet 2500 doesn't? One has VT-d the other doesn't and so on. Intel can artificially limit their processors because there is no healthy competition. Which is part of the point of the AT article: Intel has no technological hindrance in making an IB 6 core CPU for 300-400$ working on 1155 platform, but they don't do it because it would cannibalize the much higher margin 2011 platform and the only reason they can do this is because AMD sucks.

EDIT: Quote from TFA:

If we look at the situation from the marketing standpoint first, having a hex-core Ivy Bridge die would more or less kill the just released Sandy Bridge E. Sure, IVB is about five months away, but I doubt Intel wants to relive the Sandy Bridge vs. Nehalem (i7-9xx) situation--even Bloomfield vs. Lynnfield was quite bad. If Intel created a hex-core IVB die, they would have to also substantially cut the prices of SNB-E. The current cheapest hex-core SNB-E is $555, while IVB hex-core would most likely be priced at $300~$400 since it's aimed at the mainstream; otherwise very few SNB-E systems would be sold. Even then, most consumers would opt for the IVB platform due to cheaper motherboard costs and lower TDP. PCIe 3.0 should also make 16 lanes fine for dual-GPU setups, reducing the market for SNB-E even more.

 

[IntelUser2000]

The reason we're still stuck at quad core is because they changed their strategy due to ARM and low power.

In 2008, Haswell was said to be 8 cores for everyone. Earlier this year, they said they'll focus the design towards lower power envelope on the Notebooks. Then a slide about Haswell comes saying its quad cores.

 

[exar333]

The reason we're still stuck at quad core is because they changed their strategy due to ARM and low power.

In 2008, Haswell was said to be 8 cores for everyone. Earlier this year, they said they'll focus the design towards lower power envelope on the Notebooks. Then a slide about Haswell comes saying its quad cores.

Finally, a post that isn't written like a 4th grader learning economics. Times have changed. Quad-cores provide the power most users need right now, low-power competition are looming, so improving efficiency is KEY.

For those that want 6, 8, 10+ cores, there are options. They are just more expensive...

AMD offers 6-cores because they needed two more cores to be competitive with Intel's quads, plain and simple. AMD wasn't 'giving more cores for free', they needed this to keep competitive in the ~$200 market.

 

[Puppies04]

I would be seriously surprised if intel make a single $ profit on SB-E they just don't sell the numbers of chips required to cover R+D and manufacturing costs. SB-E is purely a my dick is bigger than your dick thing and a nice bit of free advertising for intel as the "best" CPU manufacturer on the planet.

 

[AdamK47]

See Edrick, someone understands Economics 101. And yes, competition is only half the reasons why prices will go down.

If AMD had Bulldozer matching or coming close to SB-E performance, they would put immense pressure on Intel if they had priced it below Intel's offering. Then, Intel would had no choice but to lower their prices or lose sales. Maybe they would collude to fix prices (which is illegal just as abusing a monopoly is illegal) but that is another issue.

If you look at a healthy market like smartphones, there are equal offerings for most market segments: iPhone 3GS, 4, 4S all with variable capacity, processor speeds, features and memory. Same thing as video card market, from a crappy Radeon 6300some to a 6990, there are SKUs for every possible market segment because the companies are ferociously to get customers.

But, because the x86 processor is an unhealthy market, Intel can do whatever they want with features and prices. 2500K has Intel 3000HD yet 2500 doesn't? One has VT-d the other doesn't and so on. Intel can artificially limit their processors because there is no healthy competition. Which is part of the point of the AT article: Intel has no technological hindrance in making an IB 6 core CPU for 300-400$ working on 1155 platform, but they don't do it because it would cannibalize the much higher margin 2011 platform and the only reason they can do this is because AMD sucks.

I really do think you argue just for the sake or arguing. If AMD was more competative you wouldn't have X79/SB-E priced so high and the idea of making a hex core IB based CPU on their mainstream platform would be less relevant.

 

[IntelUser2000]

I would be seriously surprised if intel make a single $ profit on SB-E they just don't sell the numbers of chips required to cover R+D and manufacturing costs. SB-E is purely a my dick is bigger than your dick thing and a nice bit of free advertising for intel as the "best" CPU manufacturer on the planet.

The R&D is recovered by using the same die as the workstation/server Sandy Bridge EP parts.

 

[LoneNinja]

See Edrick, someone understands Economics 101. And yes, competition is only half the reasons why prices will go down.

If AMD had Bulldozer matching or coming close to SB-E performance, they would put immense pressure on Intel if they had priced it below Intel's offering. Then, Intel would had no choice but to lower their prices or lose sales. Maybe they would collude to fix prices (which is illegal just as abusing a monopoly is illegal) but that is another issue.

If you look at a healthy market like smartphones, there are equal offerings for most market segments: iPhone 3GS, 4, 4S all with variable capacity, processor speeds, features and memory. Same thing as video card market, from a crappy Radeon 6300some to a 6990, there are SKUs for every possible market segment because the companies are ferociously to get customers.

I agree with this, but if Bulldozer was actually competitive AMD would charge a lot more for it. FX 4100 would probably be priced against I5 instead of I3, FX 6100 against I7, and FX 8150 against SB-E. AMD is already asking as much as they reasonably can because they need profit margins, if it performed better it would be priced higher.

 

[MrX8503]

The reason we're still stuck at quad core is because they changed their strategy due to ARM and low power.

In 2008, Haswell was said to be 8 cores for everyone. Earlier this year, they said they'll focus the design towards lower power envelope on the Notebooks. Then a slide about Haswell comes saying its quad cores.

I agree.

ARM is Intel's biggest threat right now, not AMD. Intel is laying down the groundwork until they can increase their efficiency before adding more cores. Intel is on a roadmap to squeeze everything out of every watt possible. I think trigate is going to do wonders for the CPU industry ahead.

 

[Edrick]

If AMD had Bulldozer matching or coming close to SB-E performance, they would put immense pressure on Intel if they had priced it below Intel's offering. Then, Intel would had no choice but to lower their prices or lose sales. Maybe they would collude to fix prices (which is illegal just as abusing a monopoly is illegal) but that is another issue.

An arguement based on a lot of "Ifs". Once again, when we look back a few years when AMD was beating Intel, AMD priced accordingly.

There are CPU market segements that have been around a long time, regardless of competition. I do not see that changing anytime soon. Intel sells top of the line at $999. And if and when AMD matches that, they will sell at $999 as well.

You are looking at things the wrong way. You see it as AMD is priced as it should, and Intel is just pricing high due to lack of competition. When in fact, Intel is priced correctly, and AMD is priced very low just so they can stay alive (with small margins).

but if Bulldozer was actually competitive AMD would charge a lot more for it. FX 4100 would probably be priced against I5 instead of I3, FX 6100 against I7, and FX 8150 against SB-E. AMD is already asking as much as they reasonably can because they need profit margins, if it performed better it would be priced higher

Exactly the point most of us are trying to get across.

 

[AdamK47]

I would be seriously surprised if intel make a single $ profit on SB-E they just don't sell the numbers of chips required to cover R+D and manufacturing costs. SB-E is purely a my dick is bigger than your dick thing and a nice bit of free advertising for intel as the "best" CPU manufacturer on the planet.

You seem to have forgotten Xeon (SB-EP), which is what SB-E is essentially.

 

[Puppies04]

You seem to have forgotten Xeon (SB-EP), which is what SB-E is essentially.

Yeah I overlooked that guys, still I think SB-E gives intel more benefit as an advertising tool than a money making venture.

 

[Puppies04]

You are looking at things the wrong way. You see it as AMD is priced as it should, and Intel is just pricing high due to lack of competition. When in fact, Intel is priced correctly, and AMD is priced very low just so they can stay alive (with small margins).

This is exactly what I was saying +1

 

[IntelUser2000]

Yeah I overlooked that guys, still I think SB-E gives intel more benefit as an advertising tool than a money making venture.

Sandy Bridge E is low volume but sells for high prices. For the amount of work(or how little) they have to do to bring a EP chip to an E, it would be pretty good on profits as well.

Lesser known fact is that there will be a Xeon E5 1xxx which is essentially Sandy Bridge E with a Xeon branding and ECC memory support(same cores, caches, clocks). So there's even more sharing going on than most people think, and that adds to the value of Sandy Bridge E for Intel.

 

[Tsavo]

My gpu encodes 3x faster than my sandy setup using its cuda cores,you should try encoding using your gpu

Your SB with that motherboard isn't making use of Quick Sync. My i5 2410 eviscerates my GTX460 in xcoding speed and especially video quality.

Cuda is a bad joke for doing encoding/transcoding.

 

[Idontcare]

Yeah I overlooked that guys, still I think SB-E gives intel more benefit as an advertising tool than a money making venture.

Name a halo SKU in any inustry that doesn't.

I'm fresh out of my Captain Obvious stickers, so you'll have to settle for being slapped with a wet-fish I'm sure I got some fresh red herring around here somewhere

 

[happy medium]

Simple answer they dont need one. No competition.
They would be competing vs there own Sandybridge -E.

 

[ncalipari]

Explain how AMD and Nvidia keep releasing video cards at the $499 price point year after year. And there is very good competiton between them. According to you, those prices should drop. So I should be able to buy a GTX580 for well under $499 today, 1 year after launch. But guess what, I can't.

yes, price are dramatically dropping. A teraflop cost you roughly 300$ today. It was 1000$ in 2008. We are seeing an exponential decrease.

Yeah I overlooked that guys, still I think SB-E gives intel more benefit as an advertising tool than a money making venture.

The variable cost of a SB cpu ranges from 20$ up to 50$ for the most complex Xeon Cpus.

I agree.

ARM is Intel's biggest threat right now, not AMD. Intel is laying down the groundwork until they can increase their efficiency before adding more cores. Intel is on a roadmap to squeeze everything out of every watt possible. I think trigate is going to do wonders for the CPU industry ahead.

Making a Hexacore CPU doesn't exclude making a high efficiency CPU.


x86 are never going to compete in the 1-10W range, not until they drop the x86 from their name.

Why do you think server chips cost so much....

Because there's people willing to pay that price.

Market is driven by demand, not offer.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Kristian's article is very interesting but I think it miss to outline well enough a critical question:

Intel didn't make IB Hexacore becuase there is no competitive pressure, while there is always a demand for more core. AMD missed the shot, and this put INTEL in position to milk this market with an older and more expensive architecture (SBE).

Intel's monopoly position is hurting technological development, and if this continues it will start to hurt prices too. We can only hope that AMD can bring out something competitive as soon as possible.

Thats the same kind of thinking the EU came up with and its the 1 reason Intel may not have to pay up . Intel holding back progress . and holding back core count is 2 vary differant things . On the Normal persons desktop 4 cores 8 threads is more than enough. If you want more cores you can PAY for them . Your argument is foundless and is a troll post . Your baiting. Intel has no control over AMDs bad engineering and low cost dies . Unless you want intel to hand AMD the performance lead . Which it kinda sounds like.

 

[ncalipari]

If you want more cores you can PAY for them .

Driving price up is just the first part of the equation. After that slow in development come soon enough, and IB is a testament to that.