4 ms·

With respect to CPUs this is not entirely true. Processors with different clock frequencies roll off of the same assembly line but small variations in manufact

by nsrango 12y ago

With respect to CPUs this is not entirely true. Processors with different clock frequencies roll off of the same assembly line but small variations in manufacturing change the quality of the yield quite a bit. This includes the side of the wafer a chip is on or how far the chip was from the center of the wafer. As a result, processor manufacturers test their ICs and sell them based on how each one performs

vxNsr 12y ago
This, what sometimes happens as a result is intel or nvidia sells a chip that "technically" is quad core, but they sell it as a dual because the tolerance is not there, and what some modders figured out was a way to turn those two cores back on, essentially getting a slightly less reliable quad core CPU for really cheap.
chinpokomon 12y ago
It's called binning. Sometimes though, when the yield for a line is really good, too many processors come off the line that can clock higher, but to match demand, better chips are binned to slower clock rates. The manufacturer knows that they won't be able to sell all the chips at premium prices, so they purposefully under clock their full potential. Similarly, device manufactures produce one line of a product, like a graphics card or a raid controller card, and through a combination of 0-ohm resisters, firmware, and/or drivers, produce a budget line product that doesn't have all the same features as the premium product or brand. Software vendors do the same. Windows NT 4 was notable in that you could change from the Workstation to a Server SKU by changing a couple of registry settings. There was a watchdog process that would actively monitor those settings and was to prevent that sort of modification, but it could be defeated. The IIS that shipped as the Option Pack for NT 4 would either give you a full IIS install or if installed on Windows 95/98, it would give you Personal Web Server. The proposed FCC rules and what the likes of Comcast would like are different, but I can see why they might think it is a similar practice. Comcast is an ISP. Upstream providers send traffic to their customers and if the customer has paid for the bandwidth, they receive the content at their subscriber rates. Level 3 is one of these backbone providers. Back in 2010, Netflix negotiated with Level 3 to put their servers on the backbone so that subscribers could get the content they were streaming. Instead of sending the traffic through, Comcast throttled the traffic and demanded that Netflix paid them as well to deliver the traffic. Essentially, Comcast wants to earn money on both sides of the data transaction and is essentially holding the network traffic for ransom. This was a significant change in how the Internet works and how providers are compensated. As a subscriber, there is nothing you can do. Netflix has reluctantly contracted with Comcast and magically overnight bandwidth improved. This is one way you know that it wasn't a technical problem and is instead extortion. The FCC proposed rules are setting up a Government sanctioned extortion ring. There are several significant problems with this type of throttling. For one, customers aren't receiving the full bandwidth they have paid for. Despite having the capacity to transmit data to the consumer they restrict the throughput. If the Comcast/Time-Warner merger goes through, they will own the majority of US subscribers. This would make it impossible for smaller ISPs to compete and negotiate similar terms, but CTW will have even more leverage. Furthermore, any other Internet service company that might want to compete with Netflix will be unable to pay the ransom and won't be able to deliver similar traffic. This locks out most startups and only the wealthiest companies with the greatest capital costs will be able to enter the market. In essence it stifles innovation. All the while, any NBCUniversal (a Comcast company) service likely won't see these same restrictions. Comcast is in a very dangerous position in that they may be able to directly monitor most of the US Internet traffic, they will be able to control the services subscribers can access, and they will have a significant advantage over any competition. The question we should all be asking if either the merger succeeds or if these new rules are passed and implemented, is what does the US Government stand to gain?

by nsrango 12y ago

vxNsr 12y ago

This, what sometimes happens as a result is intel or nvidia sells a chip that "technically" is quad core, but they sell it as a dual because the tolerance is not there, and what some modders figured out was a way to turn those two cores back on, essentially getting a slightly less reliable quad core CPU for really cheap.

chinpokomon 12y ago

It's called binning. Sometimes though, when the yield for a line is really good, too many processors come off the line that can clock higher, but to match demand, better chips are binned to slower clock rates. The manufacturer knows that they won't be able to sell all the chips at premium prices, so they purposefully under clock their full potential. Similarly, device manufactures produce one line of a product, like a graphics card or a raid controller card, and through a combination of 0-ohm resisters, firmware, and/or drivers, produce a budget line product that doesn't have all the same features as the premium product or brand. Software vendors do the same. Windows NT 4 was notable in that you could change from the Workstation to a Server SKU by changing a couple of registry settings. There was a watchdog process that would actively monitor those settings and was to prevent that sort of modification, but it could be defeated. The IIS that shipped as the Option Pack for NT 4 would either give you a full IIS install or if installed on Windows 95/98, it would give you Personal Web Server. The proposed FCC rules and what the likes of Comcast would like are different, but I can see why they might think it is a similar practice. Comcast is an ISP. Upstream providers send traffic to their customers and if the customer has paid for the bandwidth, they receive the content at their subscriber rates. Level 3 is one of these backbone providers. Back in 2010, Netflix negotiated with Level 3 to put their servers on the backbone so that subscribers could get the content they were streaming. Instead of sending the traffic through, Comcast throttled the traffic and demanded that Netflix paid them as well to deliver the traffic. Essentially, Comcast wants to earn money on both sides of the data transaction and is essentially holding the network traffic for ransom. This was a significant change in how the Internet works and how providers are compensated. As a subscriber, there is nothing you can do. Netflix has reluctantly contracted with Comcast and magically overnight bandwidth improved. This is one way you know that it wasn't a technical problem and is instead extortion. The FCC proposed rules are setting up a Government sanctioned extortion ring. There are several significant problems with this type of throttling. For one, customers aren't receiving the full bandwidth they have paid for. Despite having the capacity to transmit data to the consumer they restrict the throughput. If the Comcast/Time-Warner merger goes through, they will own the majority of US subscribers. This would make it impossible for smaller ISPs to compete and negotiate similar terms, but CTW will have even more leverage. Furthermore, any other Internet service company that might want to compete with Netflix will be unable to pay the ransom and won't be able to deliver similar traffic. This locks out most startups and only the wealthiest companies with the greatest capital costs will be able to enter the market. In essence it stifles innovation. All the while, any NBCUniversal (a Comcast company) service likely won't see these same restrictions. Comcast is in a very dangerous position in that they may be able to directly monitor most of the US Internet traffic, they will be able to control the services subscribers can access, and they will have a significant advantage over any competition. The question we should all be asking if either the merger succeeds or if these new rules are passed and implemented, is what does the US Government stand to gain?