6 ms·

I assume this is being posted because something similar has been found on Haswell, or whatever. Complaining about this is just not knowing what is going on. De

• gcp 13y ago
  The problem with Intel's tiers is that you can't even buy the top of the line device: the concept doesn't exist due to the artificial market segmentation. For Haswell, you can buy the 3.4Ghz one with TSX (4770), or the 3.5Ghz one without TSX (4770K). You cannot have the faster speed and TSX. Why? No reason. Well, someone at Intel figured that people that want to have fast multithreaded software must be business users that don't care about clockspeed. Or something. Don't ask me, I think it's the most bonehead retarded thing ever.
  • adlpz 13y ago
    Maybe it's just that in that case the silicon won't support it, we don't really know how the architecture is. It's also possible that it heats too much with both things. Who knows. Indeed it would be stupid not to offer something, just because. Charge $2000 for it and someone will buy it.
    • nitrogen 13y ago
      Maybe it's just that in that case the silicon won't support it, we don't really know how the architecture is. Indeed it is conceivable that transactional extensions wouldn't work when the clock multiplier is unlocked, but I can't yet imagine why.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  • zwegner 13y ago
    (hey gcp!) Thanks for pointing that out, that sucks. I'm glad I'm not much of an overclocker. Also a shame that they don't seem to have plans for any chips with >4 cores, and they're still disabling hyperthreading on a lot of models. It probably won't stop me from buying a Haswell, I'm drooling for all those new instructions...
  • colanderman 13y ago
    Well, you can, it's called the Xeon 1285v3 (3.6 GHz w/ TSX) and it costs $662 (almost twice as much as the 4770K).
    • adlpz 13y ago
      That would explain it. Do those Xeons have the same instruction set as the new i7s?
      • colanderman 13y ago
        Yep. They're Haswells.
  • marshray 13y ago
    > Why? My guess is that TSX being a new feature designed for multicore scalability, they're going to pay very close attention to bug reports and crashes on these new systems. They really don't want a bunch of overclockers out there generating mysterious crashdumps. For example, https://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/04/12/407562.aspx https://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/04/12/4075...
• davvolun 13y ago
  That actually makes sense, I think. Imagine how simpler and more cost effective it would be to make a single processor tiered at 4 levels via this method versus having the entire fabrication chain for four processors. If the prices are right, then I could buy the lowest tier, and a few years later pay the upgrade and get nearly a whole new processor. As long as the pricing is fair, and some cost savings are passed on to the consumer, this could be win-win, right?
  • aangjie 13y ago
    While i agree in part with the idea of spreading R&D cost via locked functionality, i am not sure it's a good idea to legalize it without any regulatory body. And forming these bodies is no trivial matter, So overall am against this idea, simply because i don't want to trust Intel/<other Big Corp(that's close to monopoly)> to pass on meaningful cost savings to the consumer.
    • Guvante 13y ago
      Your comment doesn't make sense, the locking functionality is perfectly legal and is actually a net-gain for the consumer (they now have the option to upgrade when otherwise they would have received a hardware locked chip).
• VikingCoder 13y ago
  Yes, they have a legal right to do this. And we have a legal right to say it's exploitative and immoral. I own the physical device, but you control how I use it? I'll be looking for a competing product that doesn't do that, thanks.
  • adlpz 13y ago
    Sure, that's your right as a consumer.
  • Zikes 13y ago
    It's not evil, it's the most effective way to provide a CPU capable of meeting everyone's needs at the cheapest possible prices. If they had to design and manufacture a chip at every tier it would be far more costly, and they would have to pass those costs on to the consumer.
    • VikingCoder 13y ago
      They did design and manufacture a chip that is completely capable of all of the functionality - the economies of scale are completely in their favor. And now they want to make more money by pretending as though the chip is not capable. In fact, it took them even MORE effort to design and manufacture in the ability to ACT STUPID, until you pay up.
      • wmf 13y ago
        OK, let's imagine Intel only sold fully enabled chips, so their cheapest processor is now $300. Do you want that? Does your mom want that?
        • VikingCoder 13y ago
          I live in Minneapolis, which is a hub city for Delta airlines. It is quite often MUCH cheaper for me to drive to Chicago, and get a flight that connects through Minneapolis to my final destination, than it is to book a flight from Minneapolis to my final destination. Yes, it makes financial sense for Delta and Intel to do this, from their perspectives. As a consumer, it sucks, and you can't convince me it doesn't suck. Intel is offering to sell intentionally disabled hardware at a lowered price, because they want the opportunity to up-sell the more advanced features, later. And I'm perfectly within my rights to say, "Hell, no. And no one else should buy that product, either. If we all reject it, they'll abandon this ploy." If Intel can manufacture a chip capable of X, Y, and Z, then that's awesome. Don't go out of your way to disable Z, in an attempt to squeeze more money out of me. It doesn't COST THEM ANYTHING to have Z enabled on my chip. It does in fact cost them to add hardware to artificially disable Z. Intel has figured out how to mass produce Mustang Shelby GT 500's and sell them at the price of a Ford Fiesta... with the ability to "unlock" 600 horsepower.
• exDM69 13y ago
  Intel's Haswell lineup takes market segmentation to a pretty extreme level. There's 22 Haswell cpu models on the lineup. They have clearly targeted some chips for gamers and others for server use. You can't get an "unlocked" cpu with virtualization, but you can get the same chip locked with virtualization extensions. I guess the purpose is to avoid customers buying unlocked chips and overclock them for a diy server setup and get them to buy the more expensive server chips. Process binning I can understand, it's a way to try to improve the silicon yield. But artificial crippling, when taken to this kind of extremes feels a bit dishonest to me. But that's just the way the semiconductor industry works, I guess.
  • baq 13y ago
    1. intel likes money. 2. if you want the best (general purpose desktop/server) silicon, you have to buy intel. 3. if you don't have as much money as intel likes, it generously offers you a, um, de-featured version of their silicon at a, erm, discount.
    • marshray 13y ago
      Presumably AMD has all their chip engineers engaged in trying to make their chips more performant.
  • voidlogic 13y ago
    >>You can't get an "unlocked" cpu with virtualization, but you can get the same chip locked with virtualization extensions The 4770K has the core virtualization function VT-x and VT-EPT, just not VT-d. I believe this has often been the case for desktop vs server CPUs; Intel needs to distinguish its desktop vs. server offerings after all. The 4770 is locked and gains VT-d and TSX-NI. http://ark.intel.com/products/75123/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-3_90-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/75123/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-Proc...
• muyuu 13y ago
  Intel can afford to do this simply because they don't face enough competition. Otherwise they would have to give you their very best at competitive prices, or lose clients to the competition. But for several years already this hasn't been the case for the mid-high home range. It's a worrisome situation.
  • sneak 13y ago
    > Intel can afford to do this simply because they don't face enough competition. The fact that there will soon be more ARM chips deployed for daily use in the world than Intel ones (if not already) stands in pretty stark contrast to this statement.
    • muyuu 13y ago
      They have not competition in the mid-high range home computer sector. I specified as much in the comment, if you read it all.
• kmm 13y ago
  Uh-uh. This is called market segmentation and it's as old as the street. Haven't trains had a first and a second class for centuries? It's great when I'm not interested in the top tier, I'm really glad the prices for my train tickets are (probably) lower than they would be because I'm being subsidised by people in first class. But I do like having the best CPU and a subconscious part of me feel cheated. I know how it works, but I understand people feel cheated.
  • corin_ 13y ago
    Trains are slightly different. First class gives you nicer seats, and potentially other benefits as well, the same scenario would be if first and second class passengers were all together, but first class were allowed off first. Of course, first class could be subsidising second. But it's also possible to structure prices such that it is the other way around.
    • mseebach 13y ago
      The analogy works, because the primary thing you're paying for on the train isn't comfort, it's being transported. Second class passengers (even the bloody riff-raff in third!) arrives at exactly the same time. Also, first class passengers are let off first, at least on planes.
      • corin_ 13y ago
        > the primary thing you're paying for on the train isn't comfort, it's being transported Depends how you define "primary", and also depends on how tickets are priced. I don't know enough (or, indeed, anything) about public transport costs/margins/etc. but let's say second class costs $5, first class $10, a nicer seat costs $100 more than a cheap seat, and seats last for 20 journeys before needing to be replaced. In that scenario, the extra cost for first class seat is purely spent on the actual upgrade cost, nothing to do with the fact that you are traveling somewhere. Of course, in my random price list, the upgrade price (i.e. difference between the two options) covers 100% of the actual cost - in real life, maybe it covers 200% and is therefore subsidising cheaper tickets, or maybe it covers 1% and is being subsidised by cheaper tickets. But wherever it falls there, at least some of the cost is going towards the actual, physical cost.