By: someone (someone.delete@this.somewhere.com), January 9, 2015 10:31 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
coppice (coppice.delete@this.dis.org) on January 8, 2015 11:38 pm wrote:
> Mark Roulo (nothanks.delete@this.xxx.com) on January 8, 2015 6:37 pm wrote:
> > juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on January 7, 2015 6:03 am wrote:
> > > I recall Aaron asking me why I believed that mixing VLIW with
> > > RA was a good idea. Funny, because we know now that
> > > Denver is an in-order VLIW+RA core that outperforms wide OoO cores such as Cyclone or Haswell.
> >
> > Have you not noticed that nVidia did not select the fastest 15W Haswell CPU they could?
> >
> > The 2955U Celeron is a 15W TDP part with no hyperthreading, a clockspeed
> > of 1.4 GHz and 2 MB of L3 cache. Turbo-boost is disabled.
> >
> > The 4650U is *also* a 15W TDP Haswell part, but it has a base frequency
> > of 1.7 GHz, 4 MB of L3 cache and will turbo to 3.3 GHz.
> >
> > Eyeballing the nVidia chart, the Denver (@ 2.5GHz?) beat
> > the 2955U by about 10% on SpecInt2000. My guess is
> > that a 4650U would beat the Denver chip by close to 2:1. When you lose by 2:1, you aren't "outperforming".
>
> The 4650U is a very expensive chip, while dual core denvers are going into tablets.
Do you understand the difference between cost and price? How about
market segmentation and price discrimination? Depending on customer
demand patterns nearly any specific sample of a high volume MPU
might be sold by Intel for $X or be significantly de-featured at final test
and sell for $X/2 or even $X/3. (It's hard for people with no grounding
in economics to understand why this is to everyone's benefit but that's
a discussion for another day)
The price of an Intel processor, especially one more expensive than
its overall segment ASP, has much less to do with cost than it does
with perceived value on the part of the customer and what they are
willing to pay.
If Nvidia *could* get customers to pay more for any or all of their chips
then it would certainly demand a higher price. If Intel started losing
sockets to Denver it could certainly afford to lower its prices and/or
change SKU configurations to improve value/$.
Your argument opposing the performance comparisons made by the
previous poster on the basis of pricing is basically a non-sequitur.
> Mark Roulo (nothanks.delete@this.xxx.com) on January 8, 2015 6:37 pm wrote:
> > juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on January 7, 2015 6:03 am wrote:
> > > I recall Aaron asking me why I believed that mixing VLIW with
> > > RA was a good idea. Funny, because we know now that
> > > Denver is an in-order VLIW+RA core that outperforms wide OoO cores such as Cyclone or Haswell.
> >
> > Have you not noticed that nVidia did not select the fastest 15W Haswell CPU they could?
> >
> > The 2955U Celeron is a 15W TDP part with no hyperthreading, a clockspeed
> > of 1.4 GHz and 2 MB of L3 cache. Turbo-boost is disabled.
> >
> > The 4650U is *also* a 15W TDP Haswell part, but it has a base frequency
> > of 1.7 GHz, 4 MB of L3 cache and will turbo to 3.3 GHz.
> >
> > Eyeballing the nVidia chart, the Denver (@ 2.5GHz?) beat
> > the 2955U by about 10% on SpecInt2000. My guess is
> > that a 4650U would beat the Denver chip by close to 2:1. When you lose by 2:1, you aren't "outperforming".
>
> The 4650U is a very expensive chip, while dual core denvers are going into tablets.
Do you understand the difference between cost and price? How about
market segmentation and price discrimination? Depending on customer
demand patterns nearly any specific sample of a high volume MPU
might be sold by Intel for $X or be significantly de-featured at final test
and sell for $X/2 or even $X/3. (It's hard for people with no grounding
in economics to understand why this is to everyone's benefit but that's
a discussion for another day)
The price of an Intel processor, especially one more expensive than
its overall segment ASP, has much less to do with cost than it does
with perceived value on the part of the customer and what they are
willing to pay.
If Nvidia *could* get customers to pay more for any or all of their chips
then it would certainly demand a higher price. If Intel started losing
sockets to Denver it could certainly afford to lower its prices and/or
change SKU configurations to improve value/$.
Your argument opposing the performance comparisons made by the
previous poster on the basis of pricing is basically a non-sequitur.
