The $4k procs are 10 core/20 thread
ok my mistake, how much for the cheaper 8-core XEON ? 1.8Ks ??
- Increased core count = larger die space and more cache required (and even more than you say because that chip would be a server-based chip and not a desktop chip. Neither Intel nor AMD have made a "desktop" chip in ages, yet you keep ignoring this).
- increased core count means higher TDP or lower clock speeds. Increasing core count and maintaining clock speeds means lower yields thus more expensive to produce.
- if 99.9999...% of desktop users would be content with a dual channel 6-core chip then why wouldn't they be content with a 4-core dual channel? Or is it that 9x% of users are quite fine with the Intel graphics on either desktop or laptop?
Desktop enthusiasts don't dictate the market. Period. It's been ages since they have and even then it was questionable if they ever did. Intel is producing thinner, smaller, sexier lower-TDP chips with iGPUs not because they hate us but because we don't make them money. You've got to face reality. Wishing isn't going to change that. Furthermore, AMD hasn't given a crap about us either if you haven't noticed.
Give me a brake with the low-end CPUs, im not talking about Pentiums and Core i3s. Intel already selling unlocked CPUs to enthusiasts, power users and Overclockers with iGPUs that we don't use.
Not only that but its surreal to me that HD4000 GPUs are only on unlocked K series IB Desktop CPUs that the users will never use. And lower-end Core i5s and bellow that their buyers would use the iGPU only have the HD2500.
(this must be the joke of the year)
Hey i want a 5Ghz IB with 20 cores and no iGPU using only 65W and I only wanna pay 200$. And if Intel dont wanna do so they are the worst company evah! Then I will just keep buying slowpoke overpriced Bulldozer chips and put in my case that I painted with the AMD and FX logos because im so unbiased. :hmm:
Perhaps im not communicating it as best as i should. Lets try it from the start.
Intel with IB producing 4 dies for the desktop not three(3) as it did with SB.
Die 1 : 4 CPU cores + 16 shaders for the (GT2) iGPU
Die 2 : 4 CPU cores + 6 shaders for the (GT1) iGPU
Die 3 : 2 CPU cores + 16 Shaders for the (GT2) iGPU
Die 4 : 2 CPU cores + 6 Shaders for the (GT1) iGPU.
What im saying all along is, that instead of producing this die (die 1) that 80-90% of its users will never use the iGPU, Intel could produce a 6-core die at the same die size.
That still requires a new mask and a new layout (you HAVE to do these. You would have no choice here. With a single uniform design Intel simply bins their chips and fuses what doesn't pass) and a new platform (due to chipset compatibility and maybe pin/die size issues) and by 80-90% of users you mean 80-90% of desktop enthusiasts only.
We read you loud and clear, man. I don't think that it's us who don't understand the issues here.
80-90% of the $200-300 market users that buy Core i5 3570K and above.
IB only got 2 masks, 2 dies. The difference between GT1 and GT2 is simply disabled parts. Delid a GT1 and GT2 part and you see the die is the exact same. Same applies for SB. There are no 3MB cache parts for example. They are all 4MB with 1MB disabled. Same as the i5 vs the i7 got 2MB disabled.
Intel only uses 5 masks total in the entire lineup.
1 Dualcore, 1 Quadcore for Mobile/Desktop.
1 Quadcore, 1 Octocore, 1 Decacore for Workstation/Server.
If they're not OEMs, sure. But how many people build their own rigs compared to OEM sales?
A new layout at 22nm costs like 10million $$$ and that's without calculating the work required to implement a new die layout and cache structure. Then there's the fact that you'd have to dedicate the hardware for that mask as well. BTW, Intel operates on a single uniform structure as far as fab goes. The advances and progress they make on a single fab gets shared between all fabs so how would that change things?
You're literally vouching for Intel to produce a new mask and die layout for a single CPU. Do you know how crazy that sounds? Do you actually think that would pay itself off? How many do you plan on buying? thousands?
yeap there should have been a line with no igpu cpuI would vote for neither option, you need the third option - keep the current quad-core layout and get rid of the iGPU and associated production cost, lowering the retail price commensurately.
If my 3770k could have been $100 cheaper owing to the much reduced diesize and correspondingly elevated yields and chips/wafer then that would have been a win.
Im saying they would not produce the die with the iGPU and instead start the mask and layout for the 6-core die from the beginning. They already producing this die for a smaller volume than the rest of the dies.
You can't produce a new mask and consider it the same die for smaller volume. That doesn't make sense. If it's different then it's different.
You'd need an entirely new mask and layout for your chip, whether it's from "the beginning" or not (whatever that means) doesn't matter. They both have to be new. Then there's pin/socket/chipset compatibility. And all of this for a single chip...
Even what IDC mentioned wouldn't make sense because Intel would make less money, though I'm sure he realizes this. They're in it to make a profit and if that entails skipping on making a desktop oriented chip without an iGPU and using their OEM/laptop layout on for the desktop models then that's what they'll do because they save money this way. Not like they're losing out on CPU performance to AMD by keeping that iGPU anyway.
They have created a new mask and layout for a far smaller volume CPU the Core i7 3820.