|
|
Intel CPU prices going up?
Intel's processor prices have been going up recently, rather than down.
They're blaming it on production problems. Intel has been well known to be stuck on the 14nm node for a while now. Instead of going towards 10nm they just keep incrementing their 14nm with plus signs, what are they up to now, 14nm++++? Regardless, even at 14nm they were able to keep up with production before, why not now? It's not even only their high-end processors that are in short-supply, even their low-end value-oriented processors like i3-8100 or i5-8400 are not available. This doesn't sound like a high-demand supply shortage, it just sounds like just basic low yields to me. Do you think that maybe even their internal tinkering with 14nm is making things worse for them? Perhaps, 14nm++++ is not as good as 14nm+++? In the meantime, AMD is at 12nm and humming along, and ready to migrate towards 7nm within less than a year. Yousuf Khan |
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 2018-10-15 9:13 a.m., Yousuf Khan wrote:
Intel's processor prices have been going up recently, rather than down. They're blaming it on production problems. Intel has been well known to be stuck on the 14nm node for a while now. Instead of going towards 10nm they just keep incrementing their 14nm with plus signs, what are they up to now, 14nm++++? Regardless, even at 14nm they were able to keep up with production before, why not now? It's not even only their high-end processors that are in short-supply, even their low-end value-oriented processors like i3-8100 or i5-8400 are not available. This doesn't sound like a high-demand supply shortage, it just sounds like just basic low yields to me. Do you think that maybe even their internal tinkering with 14nm is making things worse for them? Perhaps, 14nm++++ is not as good as 14nm+++? In the meantime, AMD is at 12nm and humming along, and ready to migrate towards 7nm within less than a year. I, for one, will not be buying Intel's chips going forward. The security issues they had during the year were reason enough as is the fact that their processors usually cost a lot more than AMD's for the same performance. -- SilverSlimer |
Intel CPU prices going up?
SilverSlimer wrote:
On 2018-10-15 9:13 a.m., Yousuf Khan wrote: Intel's processor prices have been going up recently, rather than down. They're blaming it on production problems. Intel has been well known to be stuck on the 14nm node for a while now. Instead of going towards 10nm they just keep incrementing their 14nm with plus signs, what are they up to now, 14nm++++? Regardless, even at 14nm they were able to keep up with production before, why not now? It's not even only their high-end processors that are in short-supply, even their low-end value-oriented processors like i3-8100 or i5-8400 are not available. This doesn't sound like a high-demand supply shortage, it just sounds like just basic low yields to me. Do you think that maybe even their internal tinkering with 14nm is making things worse for them? Perhaps, 14nm++++ is not as good as 14nm+++? In the meantime, AMD is at 12nm and humming along, and ready to migrate towards 7nm within less than a year. I, for one, will not be buying Intel's chips going forward. The security issues they had during the year were reason enough as is the fact that their processors usually cost a lot more than AMD's for the same performance. AMDs were vulnerable, too. Go reread those security articles. |
Intel CPU prices going up?
Yousuf Khan wrote:
Intel's processor prices have been going up recently, rather than down. They're blaming it on production problems. Intel has been well known to be stuck on the 14nm node for a while now. Instead of going towards 10nm they just keep incrementing their 14nm with plus signs, what are they up to now, 14nm++++? Regardless, even at 14nm they were able to keep up with production before, why not now? It's not even only their high-end processors that are in short-supply, even their low-end value-oriented processors like i3-8100 or i5-8400 are not available. This doesn't sound like a high-demand supply shortage, it just sounds like just basic low yields to me. Do you think that maybe even their internal tinkering with 14nm is making things worse for them? Perhaps, 14nm++++ is not as good as 14nm+++? In the meantime, AMD is at 12nm and humming along, and ready to migrate towards 7nm within less than a year. Every manufacturer has a maximum threshold for producing a product. A bakery can only produce as many loaves of bread per day as they have ovens. They cannot exceed that threshold without investing more money when conjecturing long-lived increased demand. Without adding more plants, Intel cannot increase their volume. Adding a plant or extending an existing one costs a lot of money which is only be reasonably qualified for expense if demand is expected to continue indefinitly, not for a minor blip in demand. Demand has gone up and exceeded their manufacturing volume. A company can overbuild their plant with reasonable knowledge that demand will go up; however, if that fails then all the expenses to build a new plant, expand an existing plant, or re-tool a plant are wasted - and companies aren't in business to be altruistic to non-achieved planning goals just so they could've made more but didn't have to. The future can only be predicted, not observed (at which point it becomes history). Also, it isn't just about the CPU chips. Without the supporting chipsets, the CPUs isn't usable. Missing hardware means lack of support for, um, what those chipsets support. A car without tires isn't going anywhere. https://www.extremetech.com/computin...pu-prices-rise https://www.techradar.com/news/intel...-14nm-shortage Prices go up when there are shortages based on current demand. That's normal business everywhere. With less or same supply volume but with increased demand from more consumers clamoring for a product, what would you expect to happen to the salesman's price? You're old enough to have heard "supply and demand" but maybe you didn't understand it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capita...ply_and_demand |
Intel CPU prices going up?
In article , Yousuf Khan
wrote: Intel's processor prices have been going up recently, rather than down. They're blaming it on production problems. Intel has been well known to be stuck on the 14nm node for a while now. Instead of going towards 10nm they just keep incrementing their 14nm with plus signs, what are they up to now, 14nm++++? Regardless, even at 14nm they were able to keep up with production before, why not now? It's not even only their high-end processors that are in short-supply, even their low-end value-oriented processors like i3-8100 or i5-8400 are not available. This doesn't sound like a high-demand supply shortage, it just sounds like just basic low yields to me. Do you think that maybe even their internal tinkering with 14nm is making things worse for them? Perhaps, 14nm++++ is not as good as 14nm+++? In the meantime, AMD is at 12nm and humming along, and ready to migrate towards 7nm within less than a year. intel is having a ****load of trouble getting to 10nm. meanwhile, 7nm parts are shipping from other fabs. |
Intel CPU prices going up?
Yousuf Khan wrote:
Intel's processor prices have been going up recently, rather than down. They're blaming it on production problems. Intel has been well known to be stuck on the 14nm node for a while now. Instead of going towards 10nm they just keep incrementing their 14nm with plus signs, what are they up to now, 14nm++++? Regardless, even at 14nm they were able to keep up with production before, why not now? It's not even only their high-end processors that are in short-supply, even their low-end value-oriented processors like i3-8100 or i5-8400 are not available. This doesn't sound like a high-demand supply shortage, it just sounds like just basic low yields to me. Do you think that maybe even their internal tinkering with 14nm is making things worse for them? Perhaps, 14nm++++ is not as good as 14nm+++? In the meantime, AMD is at 12nm and humming along, and ready to migrate towards 7nm within less than a year. Yousuf Khan "Intel are finished, finished I tell you" No, they're not. They wouldn't have switched on 14nm, without the yield being there to begin with. Did they clear out some 14nm fab building to make way for 10nm equipment ? If you've seen pictures of that before, when they change generations, the building is gutted, and there's just an acre of flooring with absolutely nothing sitting on top of it. If they decide to change process nodes, there's really no turning back. It's an all or nothing change. What they might have done, is taken a chance on reducing the number of lines making 14nm, while they gear up for 10nm. And got caught without enough redundancy or production capacity. This is a table from a recent Anandtech article announcing the 9900K. 22nm 14/14+ 14++ Transistor fin pitch 60 42 42 Transistor gate pitch 90 70 84--- relaxed pitch Interconnect pitch 80 52 52 Transistor fin height 34 42 42 Some nodes are done for power saving, some are done for max_clock (performance). The above doesn't suggest a lot of radical change. ******* And is the price change in the INTC pricelist document, or are you referring to the price at your store (retail) ? As it could take tariffs into account, if it is a retail price. Paul |
Intel CPU prices going up?
In article , Paul
wrote: "Intel are finished, finished I tell you" No, they're not. they're definitely hurting, and if they can't get their act in gear, their problems are going to be a lot worse. |
Intel CPU prices going up?
nospam wrote:
In article , Yousuf Khan wrote: Intel's processor prices have been going up recently, rather than down. They're blaming it on production problems. Intel has been well known to be stuck on the 14nm node for a while now. Instead of going towards 10nm they just keep incrementing their 14nm with plus signs, what are they up to now, 14nm++++? Regardless, even at 14nm they were able to keep up with production before, why not now? It's not even only their high-end processors that are in short-supply, even their low-end value-oriented processors like i3-8100 or i5-8400 are not available. This doesn't sound like a high-demand supply shortage, it just sounds like just basic low yields to me. Do you think that maybe even their internal tinkering with 14nm is making things worse for them? Perhaps, 14nm++++ is not as good as 14nm+++? In the meantime, AMD is at 12nm and humming along, and ready to migrate towards 7nm within less than a year. intel is having a ****load of trouble getting to 10nm. meanwhile, 7nm parts are shipping from other fabs. The 10nm actually exists. These people offer a reverse-engineering analysis of the *shipping* 10nm processors in the Chinese market. https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/1371/...nds-ruthenium/ Those are retail processors, with some being taken apart for that analysis. Now, the fact they're shipping in low volumes means: 1) Could be low yield. 2) Not enough production lines (yet). 3) Could be a material expense issue (profit not large enough). Obviously Intel did these shipments for P.R. reasons, not to "make a profit from the Chinese market". They needed to show investors and the stock market, how close they are to 10nm. Notice in the 9900K announcement, that Intel is mentioning the usage of Solder TIM again, so the added expense isn't bothering them for those parts. And their "conflict minerals" policy, I expect that's gone out the window in the name of keeping the business afloat. Never count Intel out. They have a lot of levers they can use, to make a nuisance of themselves :-) It's one of the reasons I would not count them out. They're not afraid of anyone. Paul |
Intel CPU prices going up?
Wolf K wrote:
VanguardLH wrote: The future can only be predicted, not observed (at which point it becomes history). ... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, predictions = calculated probabilities ... not proven conclusions. proven conclusions = observed (aka history) So, you rephrased what I already said. Thanks for the reinforcement. |
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 2018-10-15 1:19 p.m., VanguardLH wrote:
SilverSlimer wrote: On 2018-10-15 9:13 a.m., Yousuf Khan wrote: Intel's processor prices have been going up recently, rather than down. They're blaming it on production problems. Intel has been well known to be stuck on the 14nm node for a while now. Instead of going towards 10nm they just keep incrementing their 14nm with plus signs, what are they up to now, 14nm++++? Regardless, even at 14nm they were able to keep up with production before, why not now? It's not even only their high-end processors that are in short-supply, even their low-end value-oriented processors like i3-8100 or i5-8400 are not available. This doesn't sound like a high-demand supply shortage, it just sounds like just basic low yields to me. Do you think that maybe even their internal tinkering with 14nm is making things worse for them? Perhaps, 14nm++++ is not as good as 14nm+++? In the meantime, AMD is at 12nm and humming along, and ready to migrate towards 7nm within less than a year. I, for one, will not be buying Intel's chips going forward. The security issues they had during the year were reason enough as is the fact that their processors usually cost a lot more than AMD's for the same performance. AMDs were vulnerable, too. Go reread those security articles. Ah, good to know. It seems that AMD eventually admitted that Spectre2 affected their processors too. Thanks for that. -- SilverSlimer |
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K
wrote: On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote: [...] The future can only be predicted, not observed (at which point it becomes history). [...] ... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven conclusions. I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate change) here ... :-) -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Intel CPU prices going up?
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K wrote: On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote: [...] The future can only be predicted, not observed (at which point it becomes history). [...] ... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven conclusions. I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate change) here ... :-) Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. What is open to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on what actions governments take. |
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 06:55:40 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K wrote: On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote: [...] The future can only be predicted, not observed (at which point it becomes history). [...] ... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven conclusions. I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate change) here ... :-) Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. Climate change is already evidenced and proven. After all it's been changing for billions of years. Human induced climate change is very much open to debate. I can't track down the original paper by Essex, McKitrick and Andresen but you will find information about it at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/ or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr The data we have about the temperature of the earth is quite inadequate and is unsuited to the claims as temperature measurent accuracy. What is open to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on what actions governments take. Have a look at the graph of temperature predictions at http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...-thru-2013.png Which model would you like to rely upon? -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Intel CPU prices going up?
Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K wrote: On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote: [...] The future can only be predicted, not observed (at which point it becomes history). [...] ... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven conclusions. I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate change) here ... :-) Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. What is open to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on what actions governments take. Versus the increased gamma radiation (cosmic rays hitting solar protons) from our sun that affects the cloud cover over our planet that has a far greater effect on climate change (which is the new term since global warming failed due to the current cooling). Gamma radiation is highest when the sun is its most sluggish. https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...0may_longrange Can't tax the sun, so gov'ts turn to humans that they can tax. Can't tax the major source, so tax an available source. Of course, not giving grants unless the recipient agrees to the gov't stance on climate change also means applying influence to effect their agenda (taxation). They deliberately skewed the news media. Well, that's what gov'ts do. Those that talk about Global Warming aka Climate Change have very short time ranges. They talk about now, not over geological time spans. We should be going into another ice age but gamma radiation hence cloud cover has increased to delay it. Gee, yeah, when we do get into the next ice age, we'll get taxed for not outputting enough emissions to keep the planet in our comfort zone and prevent reduction in crop volume (if we're still here in the very short 100,000 years from now). Hm, since Earth's orbit changes from oval to circular, wonder which Milankovitch cycle we've been in over the last 20 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Earth's_movements Nope, can't tax the planet, either, just the humans scurrying around atop of it. |
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 10/16/2018 01:55 AM, Chris wrote:
[snip] Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. What is open to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on what actions governments take. That reminds me of a movie I saw once, where there was a worldwide shortage of oxygen and the government's solution was to burn down the forests (with the idea that trees were competitors). |
Intel CPU prices going up?
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 06:55:40 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K wrote: On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote: [...] The future can only be predicted, not observed (at which point it becomes history). [...] ... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven conclusions. I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate change) here ... :-) Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. Climate change is already evidenced and proven. After all it's been changing for billions of years. Indeed it has. However, the current temperatures are possibly the warmest that humans as a species have ever experienced and the rate of warming is frankly frightening. https://xkcd.com/1732/ CO2 levels are also the highest in at least the last 650,000 years and are approaching levels only seen in the cretaceous period 60mya https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cret...hermal_Maximum Human induced climate change is very much open to debate. Nope. Over 200 scientific organisations across the world support the evidence for it. http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-...nizations.html This level of agreement within the naturally skeptical scientific community is unprecedented. 194 countries + the EU signed the Paris agreement, although famously the man-baby decided to withdraw (although not until 2020). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement The debate is over. Now we must get together and solve it before it's too late. I can't track down the original paper by Essex, McKitrick and Andresen but you will find information about it at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/ or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr The data we have about the temperature of the earth is quite inadequate and is unsuited to the claims as temperature measurent accuracy. Sure, there are plenty of armchair scientists who think they know better. Dr Ball is a geographer who clearly has an axe to grind for some reason. I stopped reading your link after he started to introduce his anecdotes about flying at low altitude and taking sea temperatures. Plus he is wrong about how the north atlantic conveyor works, etc. Not very credible, I'm afraid. What is open to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on what actions governments take. Have a look at the graph of temperature predictions at http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...-thru-2013.png Which model would you like to rely upon? It doesn't matter. Climate modeling is extremely complex, the initial assumptions can influence the final results. They're all approximations from the best models, but they all have the same trend; global temperatures significantly departing from the norm. None are consistent with there being no warming. |
Intel CPU prices going up?
VanguardLH wrote:
Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K wrote: On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote: [...] The future can only be predicted, not observed (at which point it becomes history). [...] ... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven conclusions. I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate change) here ... :-) Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. What is open to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on what actions governments take. Versus the increased gamma radiation (cosmic rays hitting solar protons) from our sun that affects the cloud cover over our planet that has a far greater effect on climate change (which is the new term since global warming failed due to the current cooling). Seriously?! Gamma rays? Gimme a break! Gamma radiation is highest when the sun is its most sluggish. https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...0may_longrange Can't tax the sun, so gov'ts turn to humans that they can tax. Can't tax the major source, so tax an available source. Of course, not giving grants unless the recipient agrees to the gov't stance on climate change also means applying influence to effect their agenda (taxation). They deliberately skewed the news media. Well, that's what gov'ts do. Renewable energy sources are taxed, including solar. Those that talk about Global Warming aka Climate Change have very short time ranges. They talk about now, not over geological time spans. Er, no. Those are exactly the type of timescales that climate scientists look at. E.g https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Hm, since Earth's orbit changes from oval to circular, wonder which Milankovitch cycle we've been in over the last 20 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Earth's_movements Just like the solar sun spot theory, it doesn't explain what we're observing as earth as well as greenhouse gas emissions. The rate of change is far too rapid. Nope, can't tax the planet, either, just the humans scurrying around atop of it. Don't be daft, this isn't about tax. |
Intel CPU prices going up?
In message , VanguardLH
writes: [] deliberately skewed the news media. Well, that's what gov'ts do. [] Do they need to - isn't it skewed enough on its own? "One cannot hope to bribe or twist thank god! the British journalist. But when you see what he will do UNbribed, there's no occasion to!" I forget who coined that little ditty, but it was I think in the earlier part of the 20th century. (And of course it applies to a lot more than just the British media!) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf (Petitions - at least e-petitions - should collect votes both for and against, if they're going to be reported as indicative of public [UK citizens opinion. If you agree, please click below, unless you already have.) only] https://petition.parliament.uk/petit...BYobumelL9J54c .... she has never contracted A-listeria or developed airs and graces. Kathy Lette on Kylie, RT 2014/1/11-17 |
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:52:06 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 06:55:40 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K wrote: On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote: [...] The future can only be predicted, not observed (at which point it becomes history). [...] ... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven conclusions. I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate change) here ... :-) Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. Climate change is already evidenced and proven. After all it's been changing for billions of years. Indeed it has. However, the current temperatures are possibly the warmest that humans as a species have ever experienced and the rate of warming is frankly frightening. https://xkcd.com/1732/ That is debatable. Our historical temperature record is far from adequate. The record most relied by the IPCC is Hadcrut4 and the quality of the data in this has been found to rather dreadful. The British Met Office has acknowledged the errors and promised to fix them at the next major review. You will find more info at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...d-with-errors/ and https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...dit-by-mclean/ CO2 levels are also the highest in at least the last 650,000 years and are approaching levels only seen in the cretaceous period 60mya https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cret...hermal_Maximum There is no doubt that mankind is adding to CO2 levels but the argument for this being the cause of rising temperature is by no means settled. Analysis of historical data shows that in the past a rise in CO2 has followed an increase in temperature and not the reverse as popularly supposed. We now have a situation where CO2 levels are rising but , apart from el Ninos global temperatures have been static for the last twenty years or so. To compound the matter the heat content of deep ocean waters seems to be diminishing. Further, ther is no doubt that the temperatue of the troposphere has been falling for possibly as long as 40 years. Both of these point to a cooling earth. Interest is lowly building in the behaviour of the sun. Human induced climate change is very much open to debate. Nope. Over 200 scientific organisations across the world support the evidence for it. http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-...nizations.html This level of agreement within the naturally skeptical scientific community is unprecedented. There is no point in me trying to discuss the politics of this situation. 194 countries + the EU signed the Paris agreement, although famously the man-baby decided to withdraw (although not until 2020). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement I think you fill find that practically nobody is keeping their promises. Trump took the USA out of it because they are where the money is expected to flow from. The debate is over. Now we must get together and solve it before it's too late. I can't track down the original paper by Essex, McKitrick and Andresen but you will find information about it at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/ or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr The data we have about the temperature of the earth is quite inadequate and is unsuited to the claims as temperature measurent accuracy. Sure, there are plenty of armchair scientists who think they know better. What are you? Are you even a scientist? In fact, if you knew more about climate change than can be gained from the news media you would know that Ross McKitrick is a heavy-weight statistician who has thrown light into the dark corners of the use and misuse of climate data. There are few better. Dr Ball is a geographer who clearly has an axe to grind for some reason. I stopped reading your link after he started to introduce his anecdotes about flying at low altitude and taking sea temperatures. Pity. You might have learned something. Plus he is wrong about how the north atlantic conveyor works, etc. Not very credible, I'm afraid. Are you referring to which side of the current to sail on according to direction of travel? If you are, he is right, as any sailing directions will confirm. If you are not referring to that, I don't understand what you are getting at. What is open to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on what actions governments take. Have a look at the graph of temperature predictions at http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...-thru-2013.png Which model would you like to rely upon? It doesn't matter. Climate modeling is extremely complex, the initial assumptions can influence the final results. They're all approximations from the best models, but they all have the same trend; global temperatures significantly departing from the norm. None are consistent with there being no warming. Of course not. Right from the very beginning they were directed to finding evidence of warming. Read paras 1 and 2 of https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-princip...principles.pdf Then read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...imate_Cha nge "The UNFCCC objective is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". What many people regard as the scientific findings are in fact what it was that they were directed to find. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 20:52:59 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote: VanguardLH wrote: Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K wrote: On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote: [...] The future can only be predicted, not observed (at which point it becomes history). [...] ... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven conclusions. I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate change) here ... :-) Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. What is open to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on what actions governments take. Versus the increased gamma radiation (cosmic rays hitting solar protons) from our sun that affects the cloud cover over our planet that has a far greater effect on climate change (which is the new term since global warming failed due to the current cooling). Seriously?! Gamma rays? Gimme a break! You need to read more widely. Gamma radiation is highest when the sun is its most sluggish. https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...0may_longrange Can't tax the sun, so gov'ts turn to humans that they can tax. Can't tax the major source, so tax an available source. Of course, not giving grants unless the recipient agrees to the gov't stance on climate change also means applying influence to effect their agenda (taxation). They deliberately skewed the news media. Well, that's what gov'ts do. Renewable energy sources are taxed, including solar. Those that talk about Global Warming aka Climate Change have very short time ranges. They talk about now, not over geological time spans. Er, no. Those are exactly the type of timescales that climate scientists look at. E.g https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Hm, since Earth's orbit changes from oval to circular, wonder which Milankovitch cycle we've been in over the last 20 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Earth's_movements Just like the solar sun spot theory, it doesn't explain what we're observing as earth as well as greenhouse gas emissions. The rate of change is far too rapid. Nope, can't tax the planet, either, just the humans scurrying around atop of it. Don't be daft, this isn't about tax. Isn't it? See what happens when some of these study grants are removed. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Intel CPU prices going up?
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:52:06 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 06:55:40 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K wrote: On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote: [...] The future can only be predicted, not observed (at which point it becomes history). [...] ... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven conclusions. I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate change) here ... :-) Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. Climate change is already evidenced and proven. After all it's been changing for billions of years. Indeed it has. However, the current temperatures are possibly the warmest that humans as a species have ever experienced and the rate of warming is frankly frightening. https://xkcd.com/1732/ That is debatable. Our historical temperature record is far from adequate. The record most relied by the IPCC is Hadcrut4 and the quality of the data in this has been found to rather dreadful. The British Met Office has acknowledged the errors and promised to fix them at the next major review. No data are perfect. Especially when dealing with chaotic systems such as the weather and climate. Acknowledging that is not a weakness rather a strength as it shows willingness to improve. You will find more info at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...d-with-errors/ and https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...dit-by-mclean/ Do you have any sources that aren't partisan? Plus, blogs aren't science. Anyone can spin whatever they want in a blog. Climate research is formally published and peer-reviewed. CO2 levels are also the highest in at least the last 650,000 years and are approaching levels only seen in the cretaceous period 60mya https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cret...hermal_Maximum There is no doubt that mankind is adding to CO2 levels but the argument for this being the cause of rising temperature is by no means settled. Analysis of historical data shows that in the past a rise in CO2 has followed an increase in temperature and not the reverse as popularly supposed. We now have a situation where CO2 levels are rising but , apart from el Ninos global temperatures have been static for the last twenty years or so. Ah, yes the faux pause. At most it was a decade and it's now over, if it ever existed. To compound the matter the heat content of deep ocean waters seems to be diminishing. Further, ther is no doubt that the temperatue of the troposphere has been falling for possibly as long as 40 years. Both of these point to a cooling earth. Evidence? Interest is lowly building in the behaviour of the sun. The sun, although influential, has been discounted as a cause of our current climate change phenomenon. Human induced climate change is very much open to debate. Nope. Over 200 scientific organisations across the world support the evidence for it. http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-...nizations.html This level of agreement within the naturally skeptical scientific community is unprecedented. There is no point in me trying to discuss the politics of this situation The incredible denials of controversy theorists is staggering! How can this be political? Politicians can't agree on anything and would sell their grandmother if it win them votes. Scientists will not and do not accept being by politicians what science is! 194 countries + the EU signed the Paris agreement, although famously the man-baby decided to withdraw (although not until 2020). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement I think you fill find that practically nobody is keeping their promises. Trump took the USA out of it because they are where the money is expected to flow from. Many are. And that's the point. We have to try and do something. Burying our heads in the sand, didn't change facts. Especially challenging ones. The cost of doing nothing is far higher. The debate is over. Now we must get together and solve it before it's too late. I can't track down the original paper by Essex, McKitrick and Andresen but you will find information about it at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/ or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr The data we have about the temperature of the earth is quite inadequate and is unsuited to the claims as temperature measurent accuracy. Sure, there are plenty of armchair scientists who think they know better. What are you? Are you even a scientist? I am. Are you? In fact, if you knew more about climate change than can be gained from the news media you would know that Ross McKitrick is a heavy-weight statistician who has thrown light into the dark corners of the use and misuse of climate data. Nope. He is a denialist in cahoots with others from Global Warming Policy Foundation - a shady "charity" which refuses to disclose its sources of funding. There are few better. At muddying the waters and being a voice for the fossil fuel industry I agree. Dr Ball is a geographer who clearly has an axe to grind for some reason. I stopped reading your link after he started to introduce his anecdotes about flying at low altitude and taking sea temperatures. Pity. You might have learned something. Plus he is wrong about how the north atlantic conveyor works, etc. Not very credible, I'm afraid. Are you referring to which side of the current to sail on according to direction of travel? If you are, he is right, as any sailing directions will confirm. If you are not referring to that, I don't understand what you are getting at. He states that "cold water descending at the Poles and ascending at the Equator". If can't get the basics right, I can't trust the rest of his ramblings. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/educat...conveyor2.html What is open to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on what actions governments take. Have a look at the graph of temperature predictions at http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...-thru-2013.png Which model would you like to rely upon? It doesn't matter. Climate modeling is extremely complex, the initial assumptions can influence the final results. They're all approximations from the best models, but they all have the same trend; global temperatures significantly departing from the norm. None are consistent with there being no warming. Of course not. Right from the very beginning they were directed to finding evidence of warming. Read paras 1 and 2 of https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-princip...principles.pdf Try reading that again. They were tasked to look at the risks of climate change and the adaptations and mitigations of its effect. Climate change is already a given. Then read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...imate_Cha nge "The UNFCCC objective is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". What many people regard as the scientific findings are in fact what it was that they were directed to find. It's called hypothesis testing. The core tenet of the scientific method. I'm not going say that there aren't areas of science that need to do a lot better in being crystal clear on how the experiment was designed and how the data were analyzed. There is huge pressure to publish"positive" results where there might not be any. However, climate science isn't one of them. The controversy over the Climate Research Unit at UEA highlighted that there isn't a cover-up of inconvenient data going on. Transparency is key in science. Those questioning the science are far less transparent to be believed. The IPCC were tasked to do their job primarily because the evidence is so overwhelming in supporting anthropomorphic climate change. You'd have to be blind not to see it. |
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:51:08 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:52:06 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 06:55:40 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K wrote: On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote: [...] The future can only be predicted, not observed (at which point it becomes history). [...] ... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven conclusions. I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate change) here ... :-) Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. Climate change is already evidenced and proven. After all it's been changing for billions of years. Indeed it has. However, the current temperatures are possibly the warmest that humans as a species have ever experienced and the rate of warming is frankly frightening. https://xkcd.com/1732/ That is debatable. Our historical temperature record is far from adequate. The record most relied by the IPCC is Hadcrut4 and the quality of the data in this has been found to rather dreadful. The British Met Office has acknowledged the errors and promised to fix them at the next major review. No data are perfect. Especially when dealing with chaotic systems such as the weather and climate. Acknowledging that is not a weakness rather a strength as it shows willingness to improve. I quote: ------------------------------- The Hadley data is one of the most cited, most important databases for climate modeling, and thus for policies involving billions of dollars. McLean found freakishly improbable data, and systematic adjustment errors , large gaps where there is no data, location errors, Fahrenheit temperatures reported as Celsius, and spelling errors. Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Columbia spent three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80 degrees C. One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953 straight into a month of Spring at minus 46°C. These are supposedly “average” temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts, a Caribbean island, was recorded at 0°C for a whole month, and twice! Temperatures for the entire Southern Hemisphere in 1850 and for the next three years are calculated from just one site in Indonesia and some random ships. Sea surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly representative of the open ocean. When a thermometer is relocated to a new site, the adjustment assumes that the old site was always built up and “heated” by concrete and buildings. In reality, the artificial warming probably crept in slowly. By correcting for buildings that likely didn’t exist in 1880, old records are artificially cooled. Adjustments for a few site changes can create a whole century of artificial warming trends. Details of the worst outliers For April, June and July of 1978 Apto Uto (Colombia, ID:800890) had an average monthly temperature of 81.5°C, 83.4°C and 83.4°C respectively. The monthly mean temperature in September 1953 at Paltinis, Romania is reported as -46.4 °C (in other years the September average was about 11.5°C). At Golden Rock Airport, on the island of St Kitts in the Caribbean, mean monthly temperatures for December in 1981 and 1984 are reported as 0.0°C. But from 1971 to 1990 the average in all the other years was 26.0°C. --------------------- This kind of stuff is garbage. You will find more info at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...d-with-errors/ and https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...dit-by-mclean/ Do you have any sources that aren't partisan? Plus, blogs aren't science. Anyone can spin whatever they want in a blog. I have to go to Watts as this is the kind of information which tends not to be printed by mainstream media. Watts almost always gives a link to the original source, which is more than you will get from the media. Climate research is formally published and peer-reviewed. _Some_ climate research is formally published. _Some_ climate research is properly peer reviewed. CO2 levels are also the highest in at least the last 650,000 years and are approaching levels only seen in the cretaceous period 60mya https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cret...hermal_Maximum There is no doubt that mankind is adding to CO2 levels but the argument for this being the cause of rising temperature is by no means settled. Analysis of historical data shows that in the past a rise in CO2 has followed an increase in temperature and not the reverse as popularly supposed. We now have a situation where CO2 levels are rising but , apart from el Ninos global temperatures have been static for the last twenty years or so. Ah, yes the faux pause. At most it was a decade and it's now over, if it ever existed. Numeracy is not your strong point. To compound the matter the heat content of deep ocean waters seems to be diminishing. Further, ther is no doubt that the temperatue of the troposphere has been falling for possibly as long as 40 years. Both of these point to a cooling earth. Evidence? Published scientific literature. Interest is lowly building in the behaviour of the sun. The sun, although influential, has been discounted as a cause of our current climate change phenomenon. How has it been distorted? Human induced climate change is very much open to debate. Nope. Over 200 scientific organisations across the world support the evidence for it. http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-...nizations.html This level of agreement within the naturally skeptical scientific community is unprecedented. There is no point in me trying to discuss the politics of this situation The incredible denials of controversy theorists is staggering! How can this be political? Politicians can't agree on anything and would sell their grandmother if it win them votes. Scientists will not and do not accept being by politicians what science is! Follow the money. 194 countries + the EU signed the Paris agreement, although famously the man-baby decided to withdraw (although not until 2020). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement I think you fill find that practically nobody is keeping their promises. Trump took the USA out of it because they are where the money is expected to flow from. Many are. Who? And that's the point. We have to try and do something. Burying our heads in the sand, didn't change facts. Especially challenging ones. The cost of doing nothing is far higher. The debate is over. Now we must get together and solve it before it's too late. I can't track down the original paper by Essex, McKitrick and Andresen but you will find information about it at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/ or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr The data we have about the temperature of the earth is quite inadequate and is unsuited to the claims as temperature measurent accuracy. Sure, there are plenty of armchair scientists who think they know better. What are you? Are you even a scientist? I am. Are you? I am a mechanical engineer. What are you? In fact, if you knew more about climate change than can be gained from the news media you would know that Ross McKitrick is a heavy-weight statistician who has thrown light into the dark corners of the use and misuse of climate data. Nope. He is a denialist in cahoots with others from Global Warming Policy Foundation - a shady "charity" which refuses to disclose its sources of funding. And you complain about Watts being biased! There are few better. At muddying the waters and being a voice for the fossil fuel industry I agree. You don't know much about statistics, that is certain. Proper statistical analysis cannot be fudged and can only lead to one conclusion. It cannot be fudged. Dr Ball is a geographer who clearly has an axe to grind for some reason. I stopped reading your link after he started to introduce his anecdotes about flying at low altitude and taking sea temperatures. Pity. You might have learned something. Plus he is wrong about how the north atlantic conveyor works, etc. Not very credible, I'm afraid. Are you referring to which side of the current to sail on according to direction of travel? If you are, he is right, as any sailing directions will confirm. If you are not referring to that, I don't understand what you are getting at. He states that "cold water descending at the Poles and ascending at the Equator". If can't get the basics right, I can't trust the rest of his ramblings. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/educat...conveyor2.html It is slightly hilarious that you cite that NOAA page in contradiction. It more or less says what Dr Ball says. What is open to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on what actions governments take. Have a look at the graph of temperature predictions at http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...-thru-2013.png Which model would you like to rely upon? It doesn't matter. Climate modeling is extremely complex, the initial assumptions can influence the final results. They're all approximations from the best models, but they all have the same trend; global temperatures significantly departing from the norm. None are consistent with there being no warming. Of course not. Right from the very beginning they were directed to finding evidence of warming. Read paras 1 and 2 of https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-princip...principles.pdf Try reading that again. They were tasked to look at the risks of climate change and the adaptations and mitigations of its effect. Climate change is already a given. It was a given in 1998 when the IPCC charter was first drawn up. That was the reason for my my next citation which shows that it was a given since the 1992 Rio de Janiro conference. A bunch of politicians established global warming as fact and set up the IPCC to confirm this. Then read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...imate_Cha nge "The UNFCCC objective is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". What many people regard as the scientific findings are in fact what it was that they were directed to find. It's called hypothesis testing. The core tenet of the scientific method. I'm not going say that there aren't areas of science that need to do a lot better in being crystal clear on how the experiment was designed and how the data were analyzed. There is huge pressure to publish"positive" results where there might not be any. If hypothesis testing has been what they have been doing, why hasn't it been accepted as falsified? However, climate science isn't one of them. The controversy over the Climate Research Unit at UEA highlighted that there isn't a cover-up of inconvenient data going on. Transparency is key in science. I have a bridge ... Those questioning the science are far less transparent to be believed. The IPCC were tasked to do their job primarily because the evidence is so overwhelming in supporting anthropomorphic climate change. You'd have to be blind not to see it. I don't know what kind of science you practice but I suspect experimentation does not play a large part in it. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 20:52:59 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote: VanguardLH wrote: Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K wrote: On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote: [...] The future can only be predicted, not observed (at which point it becomes history). [...] ... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven conclusions. I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate change) here ... :-) Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. What is open to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on what actions governments take. Versus the increased gamma radiation (cosmic rays hitting solar protons) from our sun that affects the cloud cover over our planet that has a far greater effect on climate change (which is the new term since global warming failed due to the current cooling). Seriously?! Gamma rays? Gimme a break! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark His work has been largely confirmed by CERN and others. Gamma radiation is highest when the sun is its most sluggish. https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...0may_longrange Can't tax the sun, so gov'ts turn to humans that they can tax. Can't tax the major source, so tax an available source. Of course, not giving grants unless the recipient agrees to the gov't stance on climate change also means applying influence to effect their agenda (taxation). They deliberately skewed the news media. Well, that's what gov'ts do. Renewable energy sources are taxed, including solar. Those that talk about Global Warming aka Climate Change have very short time ranges. They talk about now, not over geological time spans. Er, no. Those are exactly the type of timescales that climate scientists look at. E.g https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Hm, since Earth's orbit changes from oval to circular, wonder which Milankovitch cycle we've been in over the last 20 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Earth's_movements Just like the solar sun spot theory, it doesn't explain what we're observing as earth as well as greenhouse gas emissions. The rate of change is far too rapid. Nope, can't tax the planet, either, just the humans scurrying around atop of it. Don't be daft, this isn't about tax. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 10:58:39 -0400, Wolf K
wrote: On 2018-10-17 00:14, Eric Stevens wrote: [...] Are you referring to which side of the current to sail on according to direction of travel? If you are, he is right, as any sailing directions will confirm. If you are not referring to that, I don't understand what you are getting at. [...] It's about heat transported by ocean currents. The Atlantic Conveyor moves warm water from the (sub-)tropics in the northern/northeastern Atlantic. Since it floats on top of the colder water there, that cold water subsides, and flows south (more or less) well below the surface. The Conveyor is part of the worldwide circulation/transport of heat by ocean currents. Here's a link that both explains the system, and presents recent attempts to understand the system better: https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-atla...-rapid-project Background as I have distilled it from many decades of reading science journals and magazines: As you know, water has a high specific heat, so even slight changes in this system of warm and cold ocean currents can have large effects on the circulation of air above the oceans, ie, the weather. See El Nino and El Nina. If the Conveyor changes more than X (where X is at best a rough estimate at this time), the climate of the northern Atlantic will change. I.e., the climate from Greenland to Norway will change. The ocean currents are obviously one of the factors driving the annual weather cycles ("the climate"). The climate as a whole is a network of feedback loops. Such networks are "chaotic systems". They cycle around a sequence of state changes (eg, the seasonal changes of weather in your locality) with some variability in each cycle. If some factor in the system changes beyond some limit, the whole system tips into a new cycle of state changes. The unknowns are the triggering factors and their roles in the feedback loops, and thus the rate of change into a new cycle of changes. The "tipping point" could be on the order of a few seconds to many thousands of years. The earliest climate models (1970s) suggested that climate could change as quickly as about 100 years, depending on which factors changed and by how much. Since these models did a good job of "retrodicting" (matching known climate changes), these results created a puzzle. That drove the creation of more powerful models, which have merely refined these results: it is in fact possible for the climate to change very rapidly. Since then, minor climate changes (such as the Little Ice Age of the late Middle Ages) have shown that climate can change very quickly indeed. Finer grained data from sediments and rocks suggest that climate has occasionally tipped quite rapidly in the past, probably on the order of a thousand years or so. Statistics is not the best tool for analysing and understanding chaotic systems like the weather and climate. That's why even eminent statisticians are poor guides to understanding weather and climate. NB that before the advent of supercomputers, weather prediction was statistical, and notoriously unreliable beyond a short time frame, which in Great Britain was approximately 1/2 a day (as I recall only too well from my childhood there). Supercomputers enable the modelling of multiple feedback loops one state-change at a time: the current state is the input for calculating the next state. This has improved weather prediction so that it's reliable for up to two or three days here, and pretty good for up to a week or so. Even so, every so often the prediction is badly off: some factor exceeds some limit, and instead of a shower we get a thunderstorm. Basically, any system of feedbacks between three or more entities is chaotic. See the Three Body Problem for a very old example. BTW, life itself is a driver of weather, and in the long run of climate. Eg, ground cover affects the rate of water loss in the soils, and so affects the hydrologic cycle that we call "rain." Best, -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 10/15/2018 9:13 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
... 14nm node for a while now. Instead of going towards 10nm they just keep incrementing their 14nm with plus signs, what are they up to now, 14nm++++? Regardless, even at 14nm they were able to keep up with production before, why not now? It's not even only their high-end processors that are in short-supply, even their low-end value-oriented processors like i3-8100 or i5-8400 are not available. This doesn't sound ..... I think Intel is reconfiguring most of their production lines from 14nm to the next fabrication process, and hence the shortage of 14nm products. -- @~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! /( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you! ^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不*錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa |
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 10/16/2018 4:01 AM, Paul wrote:
... This is a table from a recent Anandtech article announcing the 9900K. 22nm 14/14+ 14++ Transistor fin pitch 60 42 42 Transistor gate pitch 90 70 84--- relaxed pitch Interconnect pitch 80 52 52 Transistor fin height 34 42 42 Some nodes are done for power saving, some are done for max_clock (performance). The above doesn't suggest a lot of radical change. Princopled Technology claimed that Intel i9-9900K was about 12% faster than the top AMD Ryzen 2700X CPU. Principled Technologies retested the Core i9-9900K: 12% faster but 66% pricier than Ryzen 2700X https://www.dvhardware.net/article69724.html Those Intel i9-9900K vs Ryzen 2700X Benchmarks Look Much Worse Now https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev.../#2546fb7f108e -- @~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! /( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you! ^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不*錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa |
Intel CPU prices going up?
Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 10/16/2018 4:01 AM, Paul wrote: ... This is a table from a recent Anandtech article announcing the 9900K. 22nm 14/14+ 14++ Transistor fin pitch 60 42 42 Transistor gate pitch 90 70 84--- relaxed pitch Interconnect pitch 80 52 52 Transistor fin height 34 42 42 Some nodes are done for power saving, some are done for max_clock (performance). The above doesn't suggest a lot of radical change. Princopled Technology claimed that Intel i9-9900K was about 12% faster than the top AMD Ryzen 2700X CPU. Principled Technologies retested the Core i9-9900K: 12% faster but 66% pricier than Ryzen 2700X https://www.dvhardware.net/article69724.html Those Intel i9-9900K vs Ryzen 2700X Benchmarks Look Much Worse Now https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev.../#2546fb7f108e They'll still sell a few. It's only $500. The Ryzen 2700X is $300. And it will do Turbo on two cores. So you can run a SuperPI bench for a bar bet. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (8C 16T) Core i9 9900K 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 Paul |
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 10/15/2018 1:36 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
Every manufacturer has a maximum threshold for producing a product. A bakery can only produce as many loaves of bread per day as they have ovens. By that token, then Intel is one of the largest bakers ever. They cannot exceed that threshold without investing more money when conjecturing long-lived increased demand. Without adding more plants, Intel cannot increase their volume. Adding a plant or extending an existing one costs a lot of money which is only be reasonably qualified for expense if demand is expected to continue indefinitly, not for a minor blip in demand. Demand has gone up and exceeded their manufacturing volume. But that's not the case here. Demand hasn't gone up, it's stayed mostly the same, but they are having trouble supplying even the same number of chips they used to easily supply with previous generations. For the new 8-core i9-9900K, they have apparently only produced about 500 chips overall for the entire world! And so far no i7-9700K's at all! Add in the problems with producing even i3's and i5's, something is wrong, especially on a mature node like 14nm! I think it might have something to do with having to compete against AMD: AMD can put out a 6-core or an 8-core quite easily, it just puts two quad-core CCX's together; but Intel has to create a brand new single die. And the dies are much bigger, so yield must be lower? And today, there was a rumour that they had completely cancelled their 10nm program! Intel denied it later, but usually they don't bother to address rumours unless it really hit close to home. Yousuf Khan |
Intel CPU prices going up?
Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 10/15/2018 1:36 PM, VanguardLH wrote: Every manufacturer has a maximum threshold for producing a product. A bakery can only produce as many loaves of bread per day as they have ovens. By that token, then Intel is one of the largest bakers ever. Being largest doesn't mean infinite production capacity. They cannot exceed that threshold without investing more money when conjecturing long-lived increased demand. Without adding more plants, Intel cannot increase their volume. Adding a plant or extending an existing one costs a lot of money which is only be reasonably qualified for expense if demand is expected to continue indefinitly, not for a minor blip in demand. Demand has gone up and exceeded their manufacturing volume. But that's not the case here. Demand hasn't gone up, it's stayed mostly the same, but they are having trouble supplying even the same number of chips they used to easily supply with previous generations. For the new 8-core i9-9900K, they have apparently only produced about 500 chips overall for the entire world! And so far no i7-9700K's at all! Add in the problems with producing even i3's and i5's, something is wrong, especially on a mature node like 14nm! I think it might have something to do with having to compete against AMD: AMD can put out a 6-core or an 8-core quite easily, it just puts two quad-core CCX's together; but Intel has to create a brand new single die. And the dies are much bigger, so yield must be lower? You're obviously making guesses. Demand hasn't gone up despite all the news pundits saying otherwise. "Apparently" is another guess. "In July, during its Q2 conference call, CEO Robert Swan said: We are seeing demand signals in supply feasibility to deliver on our revised expectations. Our biggest challenge in the second half will be meeting additional demand, and we are working intently with our customers and our factories to be prepared so we are not constraining our customers growth. No, I don't know everything about their market but it's obvious that you won't even check some of your assumptions. And today, there was a rumour that they had completely cancelled their 10nm program! Intel denied it later, but usually they don't bother to address rumours unless it really hit close to home. Come on back when rumor becomes fact. |
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 10/23/2018 1:45 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
You're obviously making guesses. Demand hasn't gone up despite all the news pundits saying otherwise. "Apparently" is another guess. We all are, as Intel obviously won't tell us. Anything you or I say will just be guesses. No point in mentioning it even, as it's assumed. But we all have our years of experience to draw on, and our guesses can be somewhat accurate. Intel is having to produce six- and eight-core processors when it's used to producing only quad-core maximum. It produced a lot of good dies of quad-core, but a hex- or octa-core will have larger dies, and that would make the number of good dies lower. A die that is twice as big will result in an overall 75%-80% decrease in the number dies per wafer. That includes wasted space along the sides of the wafer. Whereas AMD is just continuing to produce quad-core dies all day long, and if it wants an octa-core, it just gives you two of them! Yousuf Khan |
Intel CPU prices going up?
Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 10/23/2018 1:45 PM, VanguardLH wrote: You're obviously making guesses. Demand hasn't gone up despite all the news pundits saying otherwise. "Apparently" is another guess. We all are, as Intel obviously won't tell us. Anything you or I say will just be guesses. No point in mentioning it even, as it's assumed. But we all have our years of experience to draw on, and our guesses can be somewhat accurate. Intel is having to produce six- and eight-core processors when it's used to producing only quad-core maximum. It produced a lot of good dies of quad-core, but a hex- or octa-core will have larger dies, and that would make the number of good dies lower. A die that is twice as big will result in an overall 75%-80% decrease in the number dies per wafer. That includes wasted space along the sides of the wafer. Whereas AMD is just continuing to produce quad-core dies all day long, and if it wants an octa-core, it just gives you two of them! Yousuf Khan I think the Ryzen is a single die with two CCX on it. So your yield is for an 8 core chips. https://wccftech.com/amd-zeppelin-so...4-cores-rumor/ Paul |
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 10/24/2018 4:39 AM, Paul wrote:
I think the Ryzen is a single die with two CCX on it. So your yield is for an 8 core chips. https://wccftech.com/amd-zeppelin-so...4-cores-rumor/ Paul The CCX's are separate dies. That's why AMD is able to produce so many of them for cheaply. In fact, it's given AMD a real advantage over Intel, as Intel can't easily produce multi-chip modules yet. It needs a major design overhaul to achieve that. AMD probably already took the pain during the Bulldozer years, ironed out all of the necessary steps to produce MCM modules. Even though Bulldozer weren't MCM's, they had a lot of features similar to MCM's. Yousuf Khan |
Intel CPU prices going up?
Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 10/24/2018 4:39 AM, Paul wrote: I think the Ryzen is a single die with two CCX on it. So your yield is for an 8 core chips. https://wccftech.com/amd-zeppelin-so...4-cores-rumor/ Paul The CCX's are separate dies. That's why AMD is able to produce so many of them for cheaply. In fact, it's given AMD a real advantage over Intel, as Intel can't easily produce multi-chip modules yet. It needs a major design overhaul to achieve that. AMD probably already took the pain during the Bulldozer years, ironed out all of the necessary steps to produce MCM modules. Even though Bulldozer weren't MCM's, they had a lot of features similar to MCM's. Yousuf Khan Looks like one silicon die to me. There are two IP blocks on it. http://i.imgur.com/9TIpxDY.jpg On the mobile part, there is one IP block (4 cores/8 threads) https://tablet-news.com/wp-content/u...l-page-037.jpg https://www.anandtech.com/show/11964...nd-updated-zen "While Ryzen, Threadripper, and EPYC have used the 8-core Zeppelin building block for their products, the laptop side of the equation will combine the new high-performance Zen core with the latest Vega graphics in a single piece of silicon. Quad-Core with SMT Vega 10 - 10 CUs (640 SPs) " Die shot of the mobile part, with one CCX on the left, GPU on the right. https://images.anandtech.com/doci/11...52_678x452.jpg HTH, Paul |
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 11/13/2018 6:16 PM, Paul wrote:
Looks like one silicon die to me. There are two IP blocks on it. http://i.imgur.com/9TIpxDY.jpg On the mobile part, there is one IP block (4 cores/8 threads) https://tablet-news.com/wp-content/u...l-page-037.jpg https://www.anandtech.com/show/11964...nd-updated-zen "While Ryzen, Threadripper, and EPYC have used the 8-core Zeppelin building block for their products, the laptop side of the equation will combine the new high-performance Zen core with the latest Vega graphics in a single piece of silicon. Quad-Core with SMT Vega 10 - 10 CUs (640 SPs) " Die shot of the mobile part, with one CCX on the left, GPU on the right. https://images.anandtech.com/doci/11...52_678x452.jpg HTH, Paul The Ryzens use 4-core CCX's, while the Threadrippers use 8-core CCX's. Here's the Ryzen block diagram: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comment..._44_33_and_22/ |
Intel CPU prices going up?
Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 11/13/2018 6:16 PM, Paul wrote: Looks like one silicon die to me. There are two IP blocks on it. http://i.imgur.com/9TIpxDY.jpg On the mobile part, there is one IP block (4 cores/8 threads) https://tablet-news.com/wp-content/u...l-page-037.jpg https://www.anandtech.com/show/11964...nd-updated-zen "While Ryzen, Threadripper, and EPYC have used the 8-core Zeppelin building block for their products, the laptop side of the equation will combine the new high-performance Zen core with the latest Vega graphics in a single piece of silicon. Quad-Core with SMT Vega 10 - 10 CUs (640 SPs) " Die shot of the mobile part, with one CCX on the left, GPU on the right. https://images.anandtech.com/doci/11...52_678x452.jpg HTH, Paul The Ryzens use 4-core CCX's, while the Threadrippers use 8-core CCX's. Here's the Ryzen block diagram: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comment..._44_33_and_22/ And that's exactly what my quotes above, provide. The Ryzen product (APU flavor), uses a new die, with a 4 core CCX and a GPU. The "IP" (Intellectual Property) block size is a 4 core CCX, which is getting reused. In the Zeppelin core, two 4 core CCX IP blocks are combined on one 8 core die. The 8 core die is replicated as four dice in an Epyc. This means they're manufacturing 8 core parts on the silicon wafer. There is a grand total of two die designs. Ryzen as APU 4 core CCX + GPU on a single die --- A unique design Ryzen desktop two 4 core CCX Zepplin in a single die \ \ Threadripper two dice of the "Ryzen desktop" persuasion \ The idea two dummy dice (replaced by working dice \ is to in the next generation, dice don't have RAM / reuse connected). / the same Epyc four dice of the "Ryzen desktop" persuasion / silicon die So they are required to yield 8 core component parts. To make some of the more profitable packaged products. This diagram is an eight core silicon die. The red line, is an architectural shortcoming, not a "snip point". https://external-preview.redd.it/ynh...f106cb9 dae33 The die is one continuous thing. http://i.imgur.com/le2atYb.jpg Paul |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HardwareBanter.com