4 ms·

They can also improve monetary yields. On mature processes, the yields are probably higher than demand - cores are being disabled because they have more buyers

They can also improve monetary yields. On mature processes, the yields are probably higher than demand - cores are being disabled because they have more buyers for a 32 core than a 48 core chip. If they can sell another 16 cores at no incremental cost post sale, that's attractive. As long as it doesn't prevent that customer from buying a whole new 48 core chip from them, anyway.

wtallis 5y ago
When Intel starts disabling cores that are fully functional, then the practice shifts over into the bad column of artificial product segmentation. It may be good for Intel, but it's a problem for consumers. Likewise, features that ship to every customer but can only be turned on by eg. Amazon are worrying for obvious reasons. The only reason why we tolerate such clear signs of market failure is because in the larger picture, Intel et al. need to keep their margins high and consistent to keep Moore's Law alive(ish). Maintaining such a fast pace of progress is probably better for customers in the long run, even if it means getting ripped off in the short term. But without such a benefit to make the tradeoff worthwhile, customers and economic policymakers would be right to be incensed when Intel uses wasteful tactics like disabling defect-free silicon in order to insulate their price sheet from the true supply and demand dynamics of their market.
- buran77 5y ago
  > The only reason why we tolerate such clear signs of market failure is because in the larger picture, Intel et al Let's not forget our history here. I'm not a big fan of Intel but any techie will remember we successfully "tolerated" such practices decades ago when the Celeron 300A ran at double frequency, the Radeon X800 series got 50-100% more pixel shaders, or the Phenom X3s got 33% more cores for free. If anything customers were rejoicing. The market was always artificially segmented. The only reason we don't know today whether disabled blocks are good or not is that manufacturers have gotten better at keeping them disabled. You'd be hard pressed to tell me the actual real life difference for you between a $300 4-core CPU with 2 cores fused off, and a $300 4-core CPU with 2 cores licensed off. > Intel uses wasteful tactics Intel fashion dictates the user will see little benefit but differentiating SKUs in software is certainly less wasteful from the manufacturer's and OEM's perspective. The logistics alone might be worth it. Software manufacturers ship full installers with features disabled in licensing. Streaming services store all content but serve you a lower quality one based on your particular "license". Car manufacturers sell essentially the same engine with different power outputs. As I said, there are no bad products, just bad prices.
  - wtallis 5y ago
    You seem to be ignoring that the hypothetical alternative would be a market with prices with downward flexibility, such that rather than gambling on unsupported hacks, you could instead get more cores for your money just by waiting for later in the product cycle. A 4-core chip with two fuzed off at $300 and a 4-core chip with two licensed off at $300 are definitely not equivalent options to be comparing, because in a market with no artificial product crippling Intel's price sheet would have to change. The fact that artificially crippling chips is not new does not mean it's a good thing. Having accepted a tradeoff doesn't erase its downsides.
- smachiz 5y ago
  >When Intel starts disabling cores that are fully functional, then the practice shifts over into the bad column of artificial product segmentation. Why? If their yield improves, should lower core count chips become scarce and then approach the cost per core of higher end chips? That's not exactly in the interest of a consumer anyway. Also, they absolutely already do that today - all chip manufacturers make viable cores inaccessible so they can have the right part mix that is selling the way they want. If your demand curve perfectly matches your supply/yield curve, great - but that's rare over time.
  - wtallis 5y ago
    I think you've lost sight of what supply and demand curves are supposed to represent. They're not supposed to line up or overlap; they're supposed to intersect at a point representing the equilibrium price. And when the supply curve shifts, that equilibrium point also shifts. That's how healthy competitive markets work. As yields improve, consumers should expect to see changes other than dwindling stocks of low core count parts. High core count parts should be getting cheaper, or low core count parts start showing up with higher speed bins or lower voltage bins.

wtallis 5y ago

When Intel starts disabling cores that are fully functional, then the practice shifts over into the bad column of artificial product segmentation. It may be good for Intel, but it's a problem for consumers. Likewise, features that ship to every customer but can only be turned on by eg. Amazon are worrying for obvious reasons. The only reason why we tolerate such clear signs of market failure is because in the larger picture, Intel et al. need to keep their margins high and consistent to keep Moore's Law alive(ish). Maintaining such a fast pace of progress is probably better for customers in the long run, even if it means getting ripped off in the short term. But without such a benefit to make the tradeoff worthwhile, customers and economic policymakers would be right to be incensed when Intel uses wasteful tactics like disabling defect-free silicon in order to insulate their price sheet from the true supply and demand dynamics of their market.

buran77 5y ago
> The only reason why we tolerate such clear signs of market failure is because in the larger picture, Intel et al Let's not forget our history here. I'm not a big fan of Intel but any techie will remember we successfully "tolerated" such practices decades ago when the Celeron 300A ran at double frequency, the Radeon X800 series got 50-100% more pixel shaders, or the Phenom X3s got 33% more cores for free. If anything customers were rejoicing. The market was always artificially segmented. The only reason we don't know today whether disabled blocks are good or not is that manufacturers have gotten better at keeping them disabled. You'd be hard pressed to tell me the actual real life difference for you between a $300 4-core CPU with 2 cores fused off, and a $300 4-core CPU with 2 cores licensed off. > Intel uses wasteful tactics Intel fashion dictates the user will see little benefit but differentiating SKUs in software is certainly less wasteful from the manufacturer's and OEM's perspective. The logistics alone might be worth it. Software manufacturers ship full installers with features disabled in licensing. Streaming services store all content but serve you a lower quality one based on your particular "license". Car manufacturers sell essentially the same engine with different power outputs. As I said, there are no bad products, just bad prices.
- wtallis 5y ago
  You seem to be ignoring that the hypothetical alternative would be a market with prices with downward flexibility, such that rather than gambling on unsupported hacks, you could instead get more cores for your money just by waiting for later in the product cycle. A 4-core chip with two fuzed off at $300 and a 4-core chip with two licensed off at $300 are definitely not equivalent options to be comparing, because in a market with no artificial product crippling Intel's price sheet would have to change. The fact that artificially crippling chips is not new does not mean it's a good thing. Having accepted a tradeoff doesn't erase its downsides.
smachiz 5y ago
>When Intel starts disabling cores that are fully functional, then the practice shifts over into the bad column of artificial product segmentation. Why? If their yield improves, should lower core count chips become scarce and then approach the cost per core of higher end chips? That's not exactly in the interest of a consumer anyway. Also, they absolutely already do that today - all chip manufacturers make viable cores inaccessible so they can have the right part mix that is selling the way they want. If your demand curve perfectly matches your supply/yield curve, great - but that's rare over time.
- wtallis 5y ago
  I think you've lost sight of what supply and demand curves are supposed to represent. They're not supposed to line up or overlap; they're supposed to intersect at a point representing the equilibrium price. And when the supply curve shifts, that equilibrium point also shifts. That's how healthy competitive markets work. As yields improve, consumers should expect to see changes other than dwindling stocks of low core count parts. High core count parts should be getting cheaper, or low core count parts start showing up with higher speed bins or lower voltage bins.