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.
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….
I assume you’re talking about the i7-5557C? If so it cost more (from Intel) that the 6700K
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....
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
Care to quote where I said this!
NOPE DID NOT SAY THAT HERE.. SAID THE EXACT OPPOSITE
SAME STORY HERE!
THIRD TIME LUCKY? NO ITS ABSOULTE NONSENSE........ I DID NOT SAY THAT INTEL 6700K'S COULD OR SHOULD BE SOLD FOR 6400 MONEY I SAID THE EXACT OPPOSITE!!
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!
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
You do realise that so far its three posters in this thread who are not agreeing with what you are saying.
In fact you are now saying a Core i5 5775C is 133mm2 INCLUDING the L4 cache.
Core i7 6700K die picture.
Core i7 5775C die picture.
The square bit is the CPU with the GT4 IGP. The smaller rectangle is the eDRAM. Oh since it costs 10% more for a massively bigger chip,which has far more expensive packaging too. Yeah,Skylake for desktop is not about increasing margins AT ALL!
Also the die sizes for the Broadwell Core i3 chips exclude the size of the eDRAM.
Your repeated deflections about how Intel is making a tiny die,with a cheaper thinner PCB was done to supposedly 14NM costing more is all meh.
You sound like some Intel shareholder FFS.
Intel even moved FIVR off the die in Skylake making the CPU even smaller than previous generations.
You are just another desktop PC hardware enthusiast who is in mass denial of where things are going.
Desktop is a cash cow to prioritise margins to subsidise Intel's forays with Atom. Intel will continue to maximise margins - their margins are still massive despite subsidising Atom to the tune of billions of dollars over the last few tears.
Plus you tried to link to Intel financials when it was reported Intel cut back on 22NM production,when a link I provided earlier showed they want to deplete 22NM inventory instead of reducing prices,which would have reduced margins.
Honestly just stop now - I expect you will twist what I have posted to fit whatever you are trying to get at.
So will will agree to disagree since its getting boring now.
I have recently bought the I3 bundle. I understood the risks. But I did not pay over the odds for anything special. In fact, the bundle cost me less than the sum of its parts.
I have recently bought the I3 bundle. I understood the risks. But I did not pay over the odds for anything special. In fact, the bundle cost me less than the sum of its parts.
Well thats topical in itself, but the mian driving force behind the campaign is the overclocking aspect. Take this away and we are back to falling motherboard and CPU sales.
How many of those sale's wouldn't have happened without that feature is the real question.
My point being, I did not pay extra. I did not pay for the overclock.
OCUK took advantage of a situation to generate sales. I was ready to upgrade anyway.
I suppose there is an argument that I did not get what I paid for. But its a bit muddy.
that was not put in till a week or 2 after they start to sell them so there could still be a few returns.
the ones that OcUK sell would be fine. the i3 would still happy play games at stock speeds of 3.7Ghz, how ever if i got the i5 at 4.4Ghz and it stepped down to the stock speed of 2.7Ghz i would be very unhappy as that would only game at 1080 for a few months before that was problems
The problem is the amount of intel programs on you system now days and the update could be passed down from any one of them. there used to be options in bios to stop outside program flashing them but now days it is common practice to flash with a program and the option in bios to stop this as been removed.
Well if someone bought a box of parts and overclocked the system then thats got nothing to do with the retailer. They might be ****ed off at OcUK and it's a questionable sales tactic but probably not legal grounds for a refund.
If someone bought a overclocked bundle say, or something was advertised as offering X amount of performance for X amount of money, that would be a different matter altogether. How much you paid for the system is irrelevant.
the ones that OcUK sell would be fine. the i3 would still happy play games at stock speeds of 3.7Ghz, how ever if i got the i5 at 4.4Ghz and it stepped down to the stock speed of 2.7Ghz i would be very unhappy as that would only game at 1080 for a few months before that was problems
Well if someone bought a box of parts and overclocked the system then thats got nothing to do with the retailer. They might be ****ed off at OcUK and it's a questionable sales tactic but probably not legal grounds for a refund.
If someone bought a overclocked bundle say, or something was advertised as offering X amount of performance for X amount of money, that would be a different matter altogether. How much you paid for the system is irrelevant.
The square bit is the CPU with the GT4 IGP. The smaller rectangle is the eDRAM. Oh since it costs 10% more for a massively bigger chip,which has far more expensive packaging too. Yeah,Skylake for desktop is not about increasing margins AT ALL!
It's surely not possible to make such a statement as the above at all, without knowing what the R&D costs for Skylake were. The cost of a chip cannot be known from its surface area.
Well if someone bought a box of parts and overclocked the system then thats got nothing to do with the retailer. They might be ****ed off at OcUK and it's a questionable sales tactic but probably not legal grounds for a refund.
If someone bought a overclocked bundle say, or something was advertised as offering X amount of performance for X amount of money, that would be a different matter altogether. How much you paid for the system is irrelevant.
Really, I would say any fault lies with Intel, who are deliberately taking an action that results in reduced performance of products that have already been bought and paid for and are no longer theirs.
I have recently bought the I3 bundle. I understood the risks. But I did not pay over the odds for anything special. In fact, the bundle cost me less than the sum of its parts.
Yes. You bought a bundle that was advertised as a overclocking bundle. If it's no longer overclockable through no fault of your own why shouldn't you get a refund?
But according to that article they can update the microcode with a windows update. If they did it that way then the way windows 10 gives you zero control over updates so the user cannot be held responsible and refunds should be given.
Really, I would say any fault lies with Intel, who are deliberately taking an action that results in reduced performance of products that have already been bought and paid for and are no longer theirs.
You didn't buy the package from Intel and Intel don't sell chips. Yes this is all down to Intel, but it's the supply chain that takes the hit and it's OcUK responsibility to how they market and advertise products.
Yes. You bought a bundle that was advertised as a overclocking bundle. If it's no longer overclockable through no fault of your own why shouldn't you get a refund?
But according to that article they can update the microcode with a windows update. If they did it that way then the way windows 10 gives you zero control over updates so the user cannot be held responsible and refunds should be given.
What makes this even more problematic to work around is Skylake has known calculation issues that need to be addressed on a wide scale and Intel are very anti overclocking.
If you run Windows 10 your prity much screwed as far as I can tell. If you run any other OS you've got a chip that can't do sums correctly.
It's surely not possible to make such a statement as the above at all, without knowing what the R&D costs for Skylake were. The cost of a chip cannot be known from its surface area.
But then the same argument could be made for all the previous Intel chips.
Intel debuted FIVR with Haswell and the complex eDRAM designs too. Intel had two Different 22nm processes. Haswell even debuted things like transactional memory which Intel had been working on for years.
Broadwell debuted on a less mature 14nm node than Skylake did and was meant to integrate a whole lot of new tech for mobile.
If you look at more of the Intel investor bumpf there is a lot of bumpf about cost reduction and a focus on mobile.
In fact historically a large percentage of Intel R and D has been towards fabs.
Plus the issue is you are comparing a single 14NM chip to a multi-chip module with probably double the surface area in silicon.a more complex pcb due to things like try he five and simply more complex packaging and soldering.
I don't think the exact numbers are needed. We know with a node upgrade comes reduced costs and smaller chips cost less. Add to this that Intel make a killing on CPU's...
You don't need to be a genius work out that what ASRock are offering is hardly worth Intel giving a second thought to, and probably has as much chance of making Intel money.
You didn't buy the package from Intel and Intel don't sell chips. Yes this is all down to Intel, but it's the supply chain that takes the hit and it's OcUK responsibility to how they market and advertise products.
I didn't buy the package from Intel this is true. Also, not relevant. I didn't buy the package from my neighbour either, but if she came round and stuck a drill through my CPU, it would still be her who has to pay the cost.
I'm saying that I have bought the CPU and Intel has no right to sabotage it once paid for and make unwanted changes to it. If they do, it's nobody else's fault but theirs.
I didn't buy the package from Intel this is true. Also, not relevant. I didn't buy the package from my neighbour either, but if she came round and stuck a drill through my CPU, it would still be her who has to pay the cost.
I'm saying that I have bought the CPU and Intel has no right to sabotage it once paid for and make unwanted changes to it. If they do, it's nobody else's fault but theirs.
By your logic people could say the blame lies with you. Your issue is with retailer nobody else.
I agree Intel are just being *****s, but it's not Intel that sold you the system or mis advertised it. As far as your concerned it's OcUK you have to deal with. You could take it up with Intel but I wouldn't expect anything more than reply telling you to sod off OcUK would also get the same reply.
I assume that if a microcode BIOS update is forced via Win10 you can't just re-install the previous BIOS?
I will watch with interest on how this pans out. I have an i5 6400 bundle and have been very pleased with it so far. I am new to computer building and overclocking so was lead by advertising such as Approved, guaranteed, super value, safe, reliable etc. etc. Backed by 8Pack and various forum posts stating that all will be O.K as long as you don't update the BIOS.
I will be pretty gutted if a forced update means I no longer get what was advertised. I built my system based on this package and if there was reasonable doubt that I would not be able to achieve what was advertised within the first year I would have spent my cash on a different package.
I hope that if a forced update means no overclock for existing users OCUK will do the right thing by the people that bought bundles. I should mention though that I have found OCUK to be very helpful and supportive in the past.
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.
