Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Do you seriously think Intel could sell all their Skylake desktop CPU's at 6400 prices (just over half the cost of the 6700K) and not run into trouble?
If so not I suggest you never go into business yourself!
Well they were selling Broadwell Core i7 chips for around the same price as the Core i7 6700 which are made on the same process node and massive 22NM2 die salvaged server chips like the Core i7 5820K for the same price. Just look at die pictures of the Core i7 5775C and it has much bigger die than a Core i7 6700K and that excludes the large L4 cache.
I estimate at least double the 122MM2 die size for the Core i7 6700K in total plus the specialised packaging needed for the chip.
The Skylake CPUs also use a cheaper PCB with less layers too.
Plus the Core i5 6400 is the same chip as the Core i7 6700 so there is no reason why Intel could not sell them for £200 and still make loads of money.
They are just finding ways to drop costs on desktop chips,so they can increase margins.
FFS,the Haswell Core i3 chips were using the same dies as the Core i5 4690K and Core i7 4770K too.
Desktop is just a cash cow for Intel to subsidise Atom.
Take away Atom and Intel would be probably having 70% margins instead of around 65% which is still decent.
Do you seriously think Intel could sell all their Skylake desktop CPU's at 6400 prices (just over half the cost of the 6700K) and not run into trouble?
If so not I suggest you never go into business yourself!
You mean like they have all done all through the firms history Absolutely Intel can and will give away chips as per the links in this thread. Like I said you don't seem to grasp how much wealth the company has or just how much is in reserve.
Intel's spending is spread far and wide yet they still manage to a make a billion dollars profit or five month every month for the past couple of hundred months.
Prepare to have your mind blown courtesy of Intel.
'For Q4 Intel’s fab utilization will be sub-50%, with that being a combination of capacity idled to keep supply down and another fraction idled for the upgrade to 14nm. Because Intel would rather have too much capacity than too little they routinely take fab capacity idle for both production purposes and upgrade purposes – i.e. the 14nm downtime would need to happen regardless – but it’s very rare for Intel to let utilization fall below 50% like this'
'his contacts within Intel manufacturing put the company's global utilization capacity at around 60%. Normally, Intel's fabs run at 95% and only come down when the equipment is being upgraded. '
Intel put production in America on hold to some degree.
Intel announced today that it would delay opening its Fab 42 in Arizona, with no word for when it would finish upgrading the facility and ramp up its production. Intel spokesperson Chuck Malloy characterized the decision as a minor course correction, noting that Intel’s fab utilization remains at 80%.
“If we can maintain that 80 percent capacity with the existing space, why spend the additional capital?” Mulloy said.
So spend a load of money upgrading FABS, buy propety to the tune of 14 billion last year, then put it all on hold when you realise people aren't going to upgrade because they have little performance incentive. And they still make 3.1 billion last quarter.
They still have the capacity though and 80 percent capacity of 14nm is nothing close to Intel's total capacity. So stop being a google expert and tell us why ASRock are so bad for Intel...
Intel put production in America on hold to some degree.
So spend a load of money upgrading FABS, buy propety to the tune of 14 billion last year, then put it all on hold when you realise people aren't going to upgrade because they have little performance incentive. And they still make 3.1 billion last quarter.
They still have the capacity though and 80 percent capacity of 14nm is nothing close to Intel's total capacity. So stop being a google expert and tell us why ASRock are so bad for Intel...
so you don't get that the reason they can sell the 6400 for $180 odd and 5820k's for $396 is because they can sell the better performing dies from the same wafers as 6700k's for $350 and xeons for $1,000's.... I know its a Sunday but really.....! My whole point is that Intel can only afford to sell 'salvaged' parts like the 5820k's and 6400's because they can sell the same cpu's from the same wafers that meet a higher standard for more!
I suggest you and jiggers take some remedial economics classes and don't go into business together!
According to this article it's all the motherboard manufacturers that are doing this. Asrock was probably flagged as they were the first to boast about this feature. The worrying thing is that a microcode update can be delivered in a windows update and the way that 10 handles updates means that you probably won't have a choice in the matter. I would say that refunds for these overclocked bundles would have to be given then due to them not being overclocked any longer.
According to this article it's all the motherboard manufacturers that are doing this. Asrock was probably flagged as they were the first to boast about this feature. The worrying thing is that a microcode update can be delivered in a windows update and the way that 10 handles updates means that you probably won't have a choice in the matter. I would say that refunds for these overclocked bundles would have to be given then due to them not being overclocked any longer.
Given that a botched BIOS/microcode update is one of the easiest ways to brick a motherboard you would hope they would not go down this route. Don't think Windows updates have ever covered 'firmware/bios' updates before have they?
According to this article it's all the motherboard manufacturers that are doing this. Asrock was probably flagged as they were the first to boast about this feature. The worrying thing is that a microcode update can be delivered in a windows update and the way that 10 handles updates means that you probably won't have a choice in the matter. I would say that refunds for these overclocked bundles would have to be given then due to them not being overclocked any longer.
I was going to observe that the ability to update the firmware has been in Windows for quite a while - before Windows 10. But then I realized you were referring to the All-Or-Nothing-We-Wont-Tell-You-What's-In-Them updates in Windows 10 and of course you are quite right.
so you don't get that the reason they can sell the 6400 for $180 odd and 5820k's for $396 is because they can sell the better performing dies from the same wafers as 6700k's for $350 and xeons for $1,000's.... I know its a Sunday but really.....! My whole point is that Intel can only afford to sell 'salvaged' parts like the 5820k's and 6400's because they can sell the same cpu's from the same wafers that meet a higher standard for more!
I suggest you and jiggers take some remedial economics classes and don't go into business together!
Oh,so you first went from Intel is not making high margins to the lame excuse that it was down to yields and then you changed your arguments and so on. I think you need classes on maybe keeping to whatever point you are trying to make.
Intel was making massive margins selling 14NM parts at £280 which are 50% to twice as large as the Core i7 6700.
They are making massive margins selling all those 14NM ULV Skylake parts which are no difference in size(going by previous generations) in Skylake laptops costing £400.
You first went from denying Intel was making higher margins on desktop to now kind of twisting it to say they are.
Guess what - I said it from the very beginning Skylake for desktop is designed to be as high margin as possible so they can subsidise Atom chips which they have lost billions of dollars of in subsidies over the last few years.
Intel could easily sell a Core i7 6700K for £200 if they wanted to - they sold much bigger chips for less in the past and still had massive margins. Last time I checked the Core i5 6400 was £150 - so stop making up nonsense that a Core i7 6700K should be Core i5 6400 pricing. Thats what you said.Not me.
Intel had multiple generations of Xeon E3 1230 series CPUs which were under £200(around £170 to £190) and were 4C/8T parts. I was one of the first in the UK to highlight them. They were all under £200 including Haswell and they were not low margin parts and that was when all the Core i7 2600,Core i7 2700,Core i7 3770 and Core i7 4770 were well over £200+ FFS.
Yet,Skylake was the first time they never had a 4C/8T part under £200. I wonder why??
You only need to see how the Core i5 6400 was overclocking to within a few percent of a Core i5 6600K. It means Intel does not even need to try and bin K series chips now.
Add the move to thinner PCBs and cheaper TIM,which reduces BOM its quite obvious what Intel is doing.
As I have told you many times,they need to recoup losses so will cost cut the desktop as much as they can,to increase margins.
Given that a botched BIOS/microcode update is one of the easiest ways to brick a motherboard you would hope they would not go down this route. Don't think Windows updates have ever covered 'firmware/bios' updates before have they?
This has been possible for quite a long time. Windows has been able to update UEFI since XP and that could certainly be delivered via Windows Update. I don't think it was done back in XP days and I'm not sure how commonly it was done if ever with Vista / 7. But you can look forward to it more in the future, I am certain. If you want something really scary, some of the instructions in your actual processor are writeable from firmware. That's how Intel have been able to fix issues post-release with Skylake in the actual chip.
I've never regarded it as a problem up until Windows 10 where you don't know what you're getting or how to stop it.
Yep and he forgets they wasted billions of dollars on Itanium and they are using all the extra money they are making on desktop to help fund their foray into tablets and phones.
Want to know why we are seeing all those cheap tablets and laptops with Atom?? Intel has been throwing billions of dollars at it and selling Atom chips for next to nothing for a while now.
But they have removed the sub £200 Xeon E3 line which were 4C/8T and reduced costs on the chips,and that goes in line with the reductions in the PCB layers which made it thinner. Intel margins were not suddenly crater even though the Xeon E3 1230 V3 had the same dollar price as the Core i5 4670K.
Like I said people forget the Haswell core i3 chips on the desktop were apparently using the same die as the 4C/8T chips.
In the end the desktop chips will be focussed on cost cutting to smaller and smaller dies.
Intel is spending billions on subsidising Atom without cratering margins so it is only logical they increase margins in areas like desktop DIY chips which probably sell for more than OEM chips which are usually discounted.
14NM costs are not an issue as the massive Core i7 5775C costs around the same as the Core i7 6700K anyway. The mobile Core i3 chips with their expanded IGPs,are probably big as the 4C/8T desktop chips anyway.
Plus,Intel has actively tried to change chip volumes to make sure prices are favourable:
In the end,making desktop CPUs as high profit margin as possible is what Intel wants to do.
They still need to subsidise Atom,as its probably more important in their own view longterm.
Also,it would probably be why companies like ASRock are removing the OC ability on non-K chips,as Intel will make much less money on a Core i5 6400 than a Core i5 6600K,and they are probably not happy that people are bypassing K series chips.
It will be interesting to see if the bigger motherboard OEMs with more clout will follow suite as ASRock is one of the smaller players AFAIK.
Oh,so you first went from Intel is not making high margins to the lame excuse that it was down to yields and then you changed your arguments and so on. I think you need classes on maybe keeping to whatever point you are trying to make.
The point I was trying to make is that it doesn’t help much if the chips per wafer goes up if the yield goes down like it did sharply at first from 22 – 14nm.. a point that seems to confuse some people….
That's the 5775C from the Broadwell range that was massively delayed with the desktop socketed versions coming just a few months before Skylake. The chip that had virtually no retail availability with pretty much all Broadwell CPU's going to OEM's. That's the chip that is still often more expensive to buy in the UK than a 6700k?
The chip that's not 50 - 100% bigger than a Skylake 6700(k) coming with a die size of 133 mm2 mostly due to the 128mb on board L4 cache that the 6700(k) does not have...that one?
'For Broadwell-U models with integrated 5x00 GPUs, die size is 82 mm2 with a total of 1.3 billion transistors, while for the models with 6100 and 6200 GPUs the die size is 133 mm2 with a total of 1.9 billion transistors.'
How do you know that Intel made massive margins on Broadwell CPU's? Ill wager that they actually made very little to no profit on most of them given the delays and yield issues
Their profits running up to Skylakes release (August/September 2015) release would tend to support this...
'The world's biggest chipmaker, Intel, reported a 6% fall in net income for the three months to September and cut its fourth quarter outlook for its important server-chip business.'
Desktop Broadwell CPU's had been out since June 2015 (assuming you could find one for sale!) so Intel seem to have been struggling with the 'massive' margins you imagine they should have been making us for selling 14nm chips for £280 apparently....
Intel could easily sell a Core i7 6700K for £200 if they wanted to - they sold much bigger chips for less in the past and still had massive margins. Last time I checked the Core i5 6400 was £150 - so stop making up nonsense that a Core i7 6700K should be Core i5 6400 pricing. Thats what you said.Not me.
Which part of the cost of a CPU is largely in the R and D don’t you get? And when did I say they could sell the 6700K for the price of the 6400? I said the reverse that they can sell the 6400 cheaper BECAUSE they can sell the 6700K for more despite them coming from the same wafer! If they charged 6400 prices for the 6700K they would likely go out of business… that was the whole point…geez
Do you seriously think Intel could sell all their Skylake desktop CPU's at 6400 prices (just over half the cost of the 6700K) and not run into trouble?
If so not I suggest you never go into business yourself!
so you don't get that the reason they can sell the 6400 for $180 odd and 5820k's for $396 is because they can sell the better performing dies from the same wafers as 6700k's for $350 and xeons for $1,000's.... I know its a Sunday but really.....! My whole point is that Intel can only afford to sell 'salvaged' parts like the 5820k's and 6400's because they can sell the same cpu's from the same wafers that meet a higher standard for more!
I suggest you and jiggers take some remedial economics classes and don't go into business together!
You only need to see how the Core i5 6400 was overclocking to within a few percent of a Core i5 6600K. It means Intel does not even need to try and bin K series chips now.
Intel bin CPU’s on more than just the max attainable clock pretty much irrespective of voltage.
A 6400 with enough volts and cooling will get close to a 6600k but the average 6600k will clock at the same frequency with less volts and cooling required. Intel don’t just sell to enthusiasts the bulk of their CPU’s never get overclocked and are run with far less cooling potential attached then the average Enthusiast uses. SO INTEL DO NEED TO BIN THEIR CPU’S FIRSTLY TO ALLOW THEM TO BE PLACED IN A SUITABLE SLOT FOR THE AVERAGE CONSUMER AND SECONDLY SO THAT THEY CAN SEPARATE OUT THE BETTER CLOCKERS TO BE SOLD AT A PREMIMUM!
And to top it off………………..where you go full on ridiculous!
Comparing a fully utilised i7-6700K die to a partially used Haswell I3 die in this manner is really stupid. The whole point of the ‘salvaged’ I3 as you point out is that half the bloody CPU is not even being used!
So why don’t you be honest and say that the ‘used’ part of the respective CPU’s is going to be more like 122mm2 VS 88.5mm2 as a 6700K does not have a massive part of its die left unused!
Intel was just making a sound business decision with the Haswell i3 by repurposing 4c CPU’s and 2c CPU’s because presumably either one or two cores on the dies used didn’t make it up to spec!
I don't dispute that Intel are subsidising certain markets to gain a foothold I just state that they have not INCREASED their retail CPU pricing in order to do so (when you factior in inflation and for us in the UK the $/£ exchange rate which is not Intel's fault.)
Many people seem to claim that they are doing this however!
It's perfectly sensible in the context of discussion. It wouldn't matter that the i3 die is a partially inactive 4c/8t die, it still cost the same to make, so you should use the full die size.
It's perfectly sensible in the context of discussion. It wouldn't matter that the i3 die is a partially inactive 4c/8t die, it still cost the same to make, so you should use the full die size.
No its not perfectly sensible. Its downright idiotic. Intel where selling thoose chips as two core i3's because some of the cores on the chips could not make the grade for use in a four core CPU! The active part of the chip is far smaller then the i7 skylake die and to pretend otherwise is ridiculous. If Intel wanted to they could have made 'native' two core i3's but it makes sense to use what would otherwise be rejected and wasted dies that had originally been produced on a wafer with four cores!
I'll say I again Intel and other chip manufactures can afford to sell some chips from wafers cheaper because they can see the chips that 'bin' better for far more. If Intel were seeking all the cpu's from the wafer that those i3's came from for i3 prices they would very quickly be in financial trouble. It that sense those i3's dis not cost Intel the same as the better performing chips from the same wafers as its an expected part of the process that some of the dies on the wafer wont meet the required grade..... Hence the talk of 'yield' per wafer. It no different to a pottery of glass factory selling defective seconds because they cant meet the grade to be sold as new. If the factory sold all their product at second prices they would lose money. But it makes sense to recoup some money from the defective products (which are an expected part of the manufacturing process) rather than just throw them away generating a total loss on the item
That it sold as a dual core or quadcore is irrelevant to the fact, as claimed, that the chip that shipped as those variants were all derived from the same quadcore die. It is the margin that Intel make on each that was being discussed in the earlier posts. The cost to manufacture each die whether selling as a dual or quadcore will be the same in the scenario.
Whether those salvaged die were selling above or below cost and whether it costs less to produce quadcores at 14nm vs 22nm is another matter entirely. I expect some sound figures could be reached knowing the die size and from intel data showing $/mm2 for their various fab processes that I recall seeing around.
That it sold as a dual core or quadcore is irrelevant to the fact, as claimed, that the chip that shipped as those variants were all derived from the same quadcore die. It is the margin that Intel make on each that was being discussed in the earlier posts. The cost to manufacture each die whether selling as a dual or quadcore will be the same in the scenario.
Whether those salvaged die were selling above or below cost and whether it costs less to produce quadcores at 14nm vs 22nm is another matter entirely. I expect some sound figures could be reached knowing the die size and from intel data showing $/mm2 for their various fab processes that I recall seeing around.
Cat was trying to make a point that the skylake die is smaller than an i3 from a previous gen. This is a downright idiotic comparison. As he's comparing a fully active die to one that's a recovered partially active die. If you think his point is valid then well just have to call it a difference of opinion and leave it to the judgement of everyone else reading the thread as to who is making more sense
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Absolutely Intel can and will give away chips as per the links in this thread. Like I said you don't seem to grasp how much wealth the company has or just how much is in reserve.
