By: Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com), August 17, 2014 2:13 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on August 17, 2014 1:45 pm wrote:
>
> This is the last post I will make on this subject
your choice.
> because those involved keep changing the argument.
> We have (as an apparent fact) that mainstream Broadwell is significantly delayed. So why?
>
> If one argues that it's because Intel has hit the point where complexity is hurting
> it in the Broadwell design, one is told no, the delay is because of the process.
> If one argues that the process is unhealthy, one is told no, the delay is because OEMs
> don't want the parts.
How about "process is healthy enough to make plenty of working parts, but not healthy enough to make them cheaper than 22nm"? Does not it fit all known facts?
>(Unclear then, why they will want them more in 6/11 months?)
May be, because in 6-11 months yield will be good enough to beat Haswell on price?
> If one argues that the process then is not much of an advance on 22nm (since it's not resulting in parts
> that are desirable) and so doesn't represent any real process advantage,
How about "is not much of advance in high-performance corner, but significant advance in low-power corner"? Does not it fit all known facts?
> one is told no, the problem is
> that the Broadwell architecture is suboptimal, and it takes time to design a more optimal architecture.
> And so we are back at the initial argument ---
>
> Alternatively we can go off into some weird conspiracy theory where, supposedly, Intel has a
> huge stockpile of Haswells that it can't get rid of, and mainstream Broadwell won't be released
> until they are sold.
In order to prefer selling Haswells over selling Broadwells you don't need huge stockpile of Haswells that you can't get rid of. It's sufficient to have a fab(s) that make Haswells cheaper than you can make Broadwells.
Of course, it works only because AMD is not sufficiently competitive, but unfortunately for us, customers and fortunately for Intel, that's the case right now.
> I'm not sure exactly how THIS argument (even assuming it's true) is supposed
> to prove something about Intel's design competence and long term financial health, since all
> it does is move the argument back to Haswell apparently not being a great success.
Of course, Haswell is not a great success. It's not sufficiently better than Ivy Bridge to be a great success. I own desktop IvyB at home and have another one at work. Would I upgrade them to Haswell? Of course not. Hopefully, not to Broadwell too, assuming they didn't malfunction. But despite people like me, Haswell sells very well. See latest Intel financial report.
>
> This is the last post I will make on this subject
your choice.
> because those involved keep changing the argument.
> We have (as an apparent fact) that mainstream Broadwell is significantly delayed. So why?
>
> If one argues that it's because Intel has hit the point where complexity is hurting
> it in the Broadwell design, one is told no, the delay is because of the process.
> If one argues that the process is unhealthy, one is told no, the delay is because OEMs
> don't want the parts.
How about "process is healthy enough to make plenty of working parts, but not healthy enough to make them cheaper than 22nm"? Does not it fit all known facts?
>(Unclear then, why they will want them more in 6/11 months?)
May be, because in 6-11 months yield will be good enough to beat Haswell on price?
> If one argues that the process then is not much of an advance on 22nm (since it's not resulting in parts
> that are desirable) and so doesn't represent any real process advantage,
How about "is not much of advance in high-performance corner, but significant advance in low-power corner"? Does not it fit all known facts?
> one is told no, the problem is
> that the Broadwell architecture is suboptimal, and it takes time to design a more optimal architecture.
> And so we are back at the initial argument ---
>
> Alternatively we can go off into some weird conspiracy theory where, supposedly, Intel has a
> huge stockpile of Haswells that it can't get rid of, and mainstream Broadwell won't be released
> until they are sold.
In order to prefer selling Haswells over selling Broadwells you don't need huge stockpile of Haswells that you can't get rid of. It's sufficient to have a fab(s) that make Haswells cheaper than you can make Broadwells.
Of course, it works only because AMD is not sufficiently competitive, but unfortunately for us, customers and fortunately for Intel, that's the case right now.
> I'm not sure exactly how THIS argument (even assuming it's true) is supposed
> to prove something about Intel's design competence and long term financial health, since all
> it does is move the argument back to Haswell apparently not being a great success.
Of course, Haswell is not a great success. It's not sufficiently better than Ivy Bridge to be a great success. I own desktop IvyB at home and have another one at work. Would I upgrade them to Haswell? Of course not. Hopefully, not to Broadwell too, assuming they didn't malfunction. But despite people like me, Haswell sells very well. See latest Intel financial report.