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.

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

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

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

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.

--
@[email protected] 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
ä¸�借貸! ä¸�è©�騙! ä¸�è³*錢! ä¸�æ�´äº¤! ä¸�打交! ä¸�打劫! ä¸�自殺! ä¸�求神! 請考慮綜æ�´
(CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

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

--
@[email protected] 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
ä¸�借貸! ä¸�è©�騙! ä¸�è³*錢! ä¸�æ�´äº¤! ä¸�打交! ä¸�打劫! ä¸�自殺! ä¸�求神! 請考慮綜æ�´
(CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

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

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

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 customersÿ
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.

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