Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 22:52:34 02/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2003 at 00:35:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 20, 2003 at 18:30:22, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >>On February 20, 2003 at 18:23:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On February 20, 2003 at 16:46:50, Aaron Gordon wrote: >>> >>>>On February 20, 2003 at 15:01:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 20, 2003 at 14:16:12, Aaron Gordon wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On February 20, 2003 at 11:42:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>That is _not_ the same idea. The idea that a vendor purposefully underclocks a >>>>>>>chip >>>>>>>is ridiculous. The idea that they don't release the next generation at a faster >>>>>>>clock rate >>>>>>>until the current supply of slower chips is exhausted is not contradictory at >>>>>>>all. Two >>>>>>>totally different business practices, one of which makes economic sense, the >>>>>>>other makes >>>>>>>zero sense. >>>>>> >>>>>>They make ALL of the chips off the same line. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>You are _completely_ missing the point. We are talking about overclocking the >>>>>_high_end_ chips. Not the low-end. The fastest production intel chips are >>>>>3.06ghz. >>>>>I don't give a squat about overclocking the 2.4ghz processors. We are talking >>>>>about >>>>>the _top_ end. >>>>> >>>>>This is about taking the best and overclocking, not about taking something that >>>>>was >>>>>intentionally marked low simply to fill a market niche request... >>>> >>>>I was referring to those as well. An AIUHB 0301 is an AIUHB 0301, whether it's >>>>on a 2800+ or 1700+. These will do 2.3Ghz MINIMUM which means AMD is producing >>>>at the very least 2.3GHz silicon. Same goes for Intel, the absolute MINIMUM >>>>you'll get off a P4-3.06 is 3.2GHz. I consider these the absolute upper limits >>>>for those chips, any more and you really are overclocking. >>>> >>> >>>No, the absolute minimum you will get from a 3.06ghz pentium IV is 3.06 ghz. If >>>you >>>want to go beyond what _really_ bright engineers say works reliably, feel free >>>to do so, >>>but you won't convince me that just because it works for the tests you run it >>>will work for >>>my mission-critical applications. I leave _that_ to the Intel engineers, they >>>will tell me when >>>they have a 3.2ghz chip that is _reliable_ at 3.2ghz, because they will produce >>>one and sell >>>it. >> >>When Intel releases the 3.2GHz P4, suddenly the limit is raised over the current >>3.06GHz. Do you think that somehow they magically are able to do this? Or >>perhaps the simpler explanation applies. Namely, that the limit never was >>3.06GHz in the first place. The core is the SAME. All gate delays are the >>SAME. But your words seem to imply that you think it's impossible for them to >>raise the speed to 3.2GHz...so, please explain. > > > >No there is no magic. Several things happen: > >1. the fab process is cleaned up. Ok, this happens a little bit. >2. chip layout is modified so that likely cross-coupling is eliminated. If chip layout is changed, it becomes a new core stepping. This happens only a couple of times over the lifespan of a particular core. It's irrelevant to the discussion, because the discussion is about overclocking a particular core stepping. >3. the fab process is moved to a smaller scale (.13 to .08 for example). In that case, it's an entirely new core. Irrelevant to the discussion. >4. A problematic pipeline stage is cleaned up to make its settling time >shorter. > >5. Parts are shrunk and pathways shortened to reduce voltage, which reduces >heat, which lets the voltage ramp back up for more speed. Both of these fall under point 2, basically, in that the chip layout is modified somewhat. >If you think that they can make and ship 3.2ghz parts the day they start at >2.0ghz, you are sadly mistaken. A _lot_ of work goes into driving that clock >rate upward. No magic whatsoever. I didn't say they could do something like that. But I do know that they can release 3.2GHz today if they wanted to. They don't do it because it's not good business. >>I can tell you the reason Intel hasn't released 3.2GHz processors, or 3.4GHz >>processors (which are both planned to be released, using the same >>core/process/etc. as the current 3GHz ones). If they released the faster >>processors earlier, they'd lose all the sales on the intervening speed grades. >>It doesn't make good business sense to release a 4GHz chip today, so they don't >>do it. > >That makes absolutely no sense. If they can already make 'em, they make 'em >on the same line. At the _same_ cost per processor. So what is the advantage >in waiting to pull ahead or farther ahead of the competition? Absolutely none >if you believe that logic. I don't believe it. Just talk to someone that >is involved in silicon design... Being involved in silicon design has zero to do with marketing those products. Marketing isn't always the most sensible field, but in this case it does make some sense. If you can sell a million 3GHz processors today for $600, and another million 3.2GHz processors next month for $600 (plus n 3GHz ones for $400 now), and then a month later you sell a million 3.4GHz processors for $600, etc., why in the world would you want to sell 1.2 million 4GHz processors today at $600, and lose out on ALL those intervening speed grades? Do the math, and it just doesn't add up. The chip companies make a lot of money by trickling out clock speed advances, because they can charge more for the highest clocked parts. Releasing something 2x faster today than what has previously been released is NOT going to net them more money in the long run. Basically, it amounts to bleeding the customers for all they're worth - and it works. Intel raises clock speed just enough to stay ahead of their perceived competition. If AMD magically released a 4GHz part tomorrow, do you seriously doubt that Intel wouldn't be able to follow suit almost immediately?
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.