What can we do to effect an actual change in Intel's corporate policy?

R

Really

n00b
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
62
The current policy:

Calculate the exact point at which consumers will no longer have any reason whatsoever to purchase a new chip.
Next, calculate the exact minimum amount of percentage performance increase over this number-- (5%, 6%?), at which consumers will have any reason whatsoever to purchase a new chip.
Finally: Provide that chip.

This means that if Intel *can* remove 2 extraneous cores and provide 5% performance, they will do so, and it's a perfect plan.

This is the collective shareholder will manifesting product outcomes that are intended to maximize profits.

The reason for Intel doing this has been stated by many: Intel must protect their R&D investment in order to have a safe buffer to ride on in the future. And they must be able to stretch this investment out as far as it can go, in order to reap the returns on it for as long as possible.

---

The change I want to see:

Intel, give us everything you've got. This means if you're stuck, and you can't give any more performance, it should be because you're genuinely stuck, not because of any calculation. Why not give the 8 core Haswells now and then screw up in the future if you can't come up with anything faster? If the era has been stagnant, go ahead and give something now. Let's push the "freeze" into the future as far as it can go. Give as much as you've got at every moment, and let the freeze be NATURAL, not artificial. Screw the fake freeze!

I think they could keep it up like that by making individual decisions at certain key years. It doesn't mean they have to lose massive money. Just don't have oversight on key years. 2013 was one of those years. Because everybody became aware of the era, and the illusion broke.

---

Would this be reasonable to even ask of any company?
How can you ask a company to make less profits?
How can a company work against the wishes of the shareholders?

Is the fake freeze not even fake at all?

Is Haswell genuinely Intel's best technology?

They've got 10 core Xeons, but 8 core Haswell would literally not be possible?

Would 8 core Haswell have been possible if Intel chose to be a less profitable company?
A slightly less profitable company, or a much less profitable company?

What if Intel dropped the non-Xeons completely, and used a simplified product lineup to save money?
What if Intel stopped manufacturing all chips with a lower core count, and used the simplified lineup to save money?

How could we convince Intel to lose 6% profits in order to advance the world's computation by 20%?

Does a company have any duty to humanity to consider such ideas?

---

Let's make an Intel, screw the 5% margin campaign.

Maybe you'd make more money in the future, if you screwed the margin now. How?

When the world is advancing more rapidly, we may be able to produce more babies.
We may be able to compute better things and produce more technology.
We may be able to feed the humans on our planet more quickly, and get them ready as customers for Intel.
We may be able to create a network of planets, full of humans spreading to the stars sooner.
We may be able to have more people to purchase your chips, if you give us faster ones.

Therefore, maybe you're wrong to not give everything at every moment.
 
Fact of the matter is that, despite what they say, the enthusiast/overclocking community is basically irrelevant to Intel. It's such a tiny %age of their market.

Our voice is a tiny whisper compared to the OEMs and their shareholders/potential investors. That's nothing new. Intel are here to make money, they're not here to appease the enthusiast market.
 
I'm not talking about the enthusiasts.

I'm talking about the speed of the time.
 
So you think Intel are holding back the whole world/the pace of human progression because their chips are not the best that they can be?

Interesting. What makes you think that Intel have any duty to humanity?

Also, for really critical research/modelling, there are true supercomputers...
 
Don't buy them ?
If you have Sandy or Ivy already you have no reason to buy any new Intel chip until they show meaningfull update.
 
The current policy:

Calculate the exact point at which consumers will no longer have any reason whatsoever to purchase a new chip.
Next, calculate the exact minimum amount of percentage performance increase over this number-- (5%, 6%?), at which consumers will have any reason whatsoever to purchase a new chip.
Finally: Provide that chip.
Click to expand...

I do not believe that is the real current policy although it may seem that way from the outside. To me the focus is producing APUs and trying to compete with ARM for the low power segment.
 
Face it guys, the days of the enthusiast chip are over. I'm holding on to my main i7 3930K rig and 'am more than satisfied for years to come.
I'll probably end up buying a Haswell Macbook Pro.
 
The masses have chosen low power tablets over high power desktops...hence, no need for the high end chips except to advance their power consumption/graphics departments.

When they move to BGA eventually, it will officially be "over" for the enthusiast chips, but you have a year or two until then.
 
What is this, "Really? With Seth, Amy, and Really."? ;)

I don't have much to say about whether Intel is purposefully producing a less than stellar chip on purpose, as a marketing scheme, but good use of the unusual verb form of "effect." Hardly anyone uses affect/effect properly.
 
Really said:
When the world is advancing more rapidly, we may be able to produce more babies.
We may be able to compute better things and produce more technology.
We may be able to feed the humans on our planet more quickly, and get them ready as customers for Intel.
We may be able to create a network of planets, full of humans spreading to the stars sooner.
We may be able to have more people to purchase your chips, if you give us faster ones.
Click to expand...

index.php
 
I don't see anything motivating Intel to produce faster chips aside from AMD getting their shit together on the x86 front.

The only competition that actually has them worried right now is ARM, but none of the ways in which they are focused on competing with ARM really benefit end users like us much at all. Give me a CPU that pulls 600W under load but can hit 6-7Ghz on air and I'd be perfectly happy. Instead we're more likely to get a wannabe ARM processor that struggles past 3-4Ghz but gets great battery life! :rolleyes:
 
why don't you start an occupy intel movement? as history as shown, occupy movements are very effective in instituting widespread change.

never underestimate what six people united as one can do.
 
You want to impact Intel ? Buy from the competition. Don't like the competition ? Don't bitch about it.
The only way you can make companies listen to your desires, is if you deny them your money. No amounts of angry letters, website campaigns or trolling will fix this as shareholders are impervious to internet douchebaggery.
 
Really said:
What can we do to effect an actual change in Intel's corporate policy?
Click to expand...

Buy AMD, they give you everything they've got!

My i5 3570k is a little faster than my Phenom II 965BE but I don't notice the difference, and it's 1/2 the price, most people don't care what brand is inside.
 
You want to know why Intel locks-down core count and feature-set on consumer chips?

The high margins of the Xeon chips subsidize the low prices Intel offers for their entry-level parts. Same goes for their mid-range quad-core parts, which carry a significant premium over their entry-level parts. This is why Intel can offer fast dual-core parts for under 50 bucks, with performance good enough to satisfy most users!

And why must Intel offer parts for under $50? Because that's the price most people are willing to pay for a desktop these days. Intel would never make enough monsy to cover an 8-10 core part at this price-point, so they don't bother.

If you want cutting-edge performance from Intel, you can have it. Just be prepared to pay for it. It used to be that EVERYONE paid high prices for Intel chips (the original Pentium was priced between hundreds and thousands of dollars, and budget buyers were stuck with 486 sloppy seconds), but now only high-end buyers do. This gives Intel the market share they need to maintain their overpowering image, while giving them a way to afford each new fab revision, AND give the image that their entire product line is cutting-edge and enticing.
 
Since you obviously think that designing, fabricating and then selling chips is so easy the solution is obvious. Just do it yourself. I'm kidding of course. :D

Intel is in business to make money, just like any business is. I don't think they are deliberately holding back on anything. You got to remember that if they dump a huge amount of money into R@D then they are going to do their best to get a return on it. I would do the same, so would you. It is also a fact that at the moment no one is pushing them to make great leaps in clock speeds. However, the market is pushing for power efficiency. We enthusiasts are a small minority. The masses are looking for better battery life for their mobile devices, so as a business it makes sense to put your R@D money into that path.
 
reb00tin said:
Buy AMD, they give you everything they've got!

My i5 3570k is a little faster than my Phenom II 965BE but I don't notice the difference, and it's 1/2 the price, most people don't care what brand is inside.
Click to expand...

I have more use for a Phenom II 965BE than I do an i5-3570k. I really only need one fast gaming rig, and I have one. I wouldn't mind a another server box that was less power hungry though. If I had a single CPU box for file serving I wouldn't have to run one of my quads as much. It only needs 1-2 cores to deliver 700MB/s off disk to my desktop*, and the PII has a higher clock speed. The PII can use ECC ram & boards are available with more than 2 PCI-e 8x slots for RAID controllers and an Infiniband NIC at a lower price. Actually I think I just kind of explained the problem.

There just isn't much need for faster CPUs at the consumer level. The most stressful things "normal" people do to computers are run games and re-encode video.

If you want to see Intel start making consumer CPUs with more oomph, about all you can do is give consumers a reason to want them. Learn to program if you don't know how already, come up with a really good idea, and invent a killer app for high powered desktops. Maybe something involving virtual reality + porn and/or social networking.

* When running Linux on the desktop and using NFS with remote direct memory access (RDMA) transport. Samba to Windows using IPoIB is more like 350MB/s. FTP to either OS is almost as fast as NFS-RDMA.
 
Intel has a few obligations when releasing new chips.

1. The cpu must be at least a little faster (like we've been getting)

2. There is a huge push for lower power consumption (again this is whats happening)

3. They need to be able to make continual improvements each year and keeping in mind that silicon fab technology its going to eventually hit a wall and major replacements to continue innovating is going to be extremely expensive (similar to alternative energy). Therefore without major competition on the performance front they can have many more releases to extend the life of silicon cpu design.
 
Really said:
Maybe you'd make more money in the future, if you screwed the margin now. How?

When the world is advancing more rapidly, we may be able to produce more babies.
We may be able to compute better things and produce more technology.
We may be able to feed the humans on our planet more quickly, and get them ready as customers for Intel.
We may be able to create a network of planets, full of humans spreading to the stars sooner.
We may be able to have more people to purchase your chips, if you give us faster ones.

Therefore, maybe you're wrong to not give everything at every moment.
Click to expand...

This is sig worthy, I may have to apply it on ALL the forums I frequent.
 
RamonGTP said:
This is sig worthy, I may have to apply it on ALL the forums I frequent.
Click to expand...

Dear every company I want to buy things from:

If you make your shit free and forget about profits just for now, I will have a shitload of kids who will buy your shit for money later.

Pinky swear!
 
Where did this conspiracy theory come from that Intel is just sitting on massive performance gains just because it can? And what would that say about AMD's engineers? Intel is holding back severely and they STILL can't measure up? Doesn't seem likely.

More likely is that it's just increasingly difficult to squeeze more computing power out of a single CPU without getting into some of the more exotic materials and processes that just aren't cost-effective yet. And there's not much reason to do so. Most of the applications that require huge amounts of compute power are just fine running on massive clusters of hundreds of CPUs.

The number of people who benefit from a single, super expensive CPU are pretty small.
 
bernaby said:
Since you obviously think that designing, fabricating and then selling chips is so easy the solution is obvious. Just do it yourself. I'm kidding of course. :D

Intel is in business to make money, just like any business is. I don't think they are deliberately holding back on anything. You got to remember that if they dump a huge amount of money into R@D then they are going to do their best to get a return on it.
Click to expand...

The contradiction.
 
Really said:
The current policy:

Calculate the exact point at which consumers will no longer have any reason whatsoever to purchase a new chip.
Next, calculate the exact minimum amount of percentage performance increase over this number-- (5%, 6%?), at which consumers will have any reason whatsoever to purchase a new chip.
Finally: Provide that chip.

This means that if Intel *can* remove 2 extraneous cores and provide 5% performance, they will do so, and it's a perfect plan.

This is the collective shareholder will manifesting product outcomes that are intended to maximize profits.

The reason for Intel doing this has been stated by many: Intel must protect their R&D investment in order to have a safe buffer to ride on in the future. And they must be able to stretch this investment out as far as it can go, in order to reap the returns on it for as long as possible.

---

The change I want to see:

Intel, give us everything you've got. This means if you're stuck, and you can't give any more performance, it should be because you're genuinely stuck, not because of any calculation. Why not give the 8 core Haswells now and then screw up in the future if you can't come up with anything faster? If the era has been stagnant, go ahead and give something now. Let's push the "freeze" into the future as far as it can go. Give as much as you've got at every moment, and let the freeze be NATURAL, not artificial. Screw the fake freeze!

I think they could keep it up like that by making individual decisions at certain key years. It doesn't mean they have to lose massive money. Just don't have oversight on key years. 2013 was one of those years. Because everybody became aware of the era, and the illusion broke.

---

Would this be reasonable to even ask of any company?
How can you ask a company to make less profits?
How can a company work against the wishes of the shareholders?

Is the fake freeze not even fake at all?

Is Haswell genuinely Intel's best technology?

They've got 10 core Xeons, but 8 core Haswell would literally not be possible?

Would 8 core Haswell have been possible if Intel chose to be a less profitable company?
A slightly less profitable company, or a much less profitable company?

What if Intel dropped the non-Xeons completely, and used a simplified product lineup to save money?
What if Intel stopped manufacturing all chips with a lower core count, and used the simplified lineup to save money?

How could we convince Intel to lose 6% profits in order to advance the world's computation by 20%?

Does a company have any duty to humanity to consider such ideas?

---

Let's make an Intel, screw the 5% margin campaign.

Maybe you'd make more money in the future, if you screwed the margin now. How?

When the world is advancing more rapidly, we may be able to produce more babies.
We may be able to compute better things and produce more technology.
We may be able to feed the humans on our planet more quickly, and get them ready as customers for Intel.
We may be able to create a network of planets, full of humans spreading to the stars sooner.
We may be able to have more people to purchase your chips, if you give us faster ones.

Therefore, maybe you're wrong to not give everything at every moment.
Click to expand...
Wow. Yet another self-entitled child who understands nothing about even basic economics or even the most rudimentary understanding of the processes required to produce the product they are bitching about.

"Waaaaaaaaaaaa.... xyz video card is $1000. Waaaaaaaaaa... xyz processor is only 10% faster. Waaaaaaaaaaa I know nothing of supply and demand, perceived value, and those assholes with all that money and engineering degrees earning more money than I will ever see producing circuits so complex I will never understand how even .01% of how it works. THEY OWE ME SO MY GAMES RUN FASTER WAAAAAAA!!"

Intel doesn't owe you shit. Intel doesn't owe humanity shit. They are a business. Businesses make money, keep people employed, have taxable income that allows you to live comfortably in your 1st world country.
 
Last edited:
soupcxan said:
If you want more cores now, why don't you just buy a xeon?
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Intel moves at the speed of the market demand. When its needed, they're going to put it out there. This isn't the early 2000's any more. There's not serious competition, nor are there really many software demands for more speed. Hell even the Core 2 chips are still viable for probably 99% of software use. They're what, 5 or 6 years old?

The range of cpu processing power is simply wider than it has ever been. You just have to pay the premium for what you're after.

You want more than 6 cores, get a Xeon E5 family chip.
 
People say the enthusiasts are nothing to intel but that's not true. The K series CPUs gotta be a direct product of the enthusiasts, why would they make something like that otherwise?

What is really going on is that Intel is maturing as a company and starting to act like a giant company does. They reserve certain features for their higher end lines (IE xeon) and if you want those features you must step up to a xeon. This is just like how GM will reserve various features for Cadillac.

Anyhow if you hate how all this works it will only get worse when CPUs go BGA and are soldered onto the motherboard, because now you wont even be able to pair a high end chip like a 2700k with a $100 motherboard. They will force you to at least a $150 motherboard.
 
kirbyrj said:
The masses have chosen low power tablets over high power desktops...hence, no need for the high end chips except to advance their power consumption/graphics departments.

When they move to BGA eventually, it will officially be "over" for the enthusiast chips, but you have a year or two until then.
Click to expand...

Nah.

If LGA chops go the way of the dodo I think the motherboard manufacturers will agree on a BGA adaptor standard.

like this:

BGA-setup-600x404.jpg
 
rudy said:
People say the enthusiasts are nothing to intel but that's not true. The K series CPUs gotta be a direct product of the enthusiasts, why would they make something like that otherwise?

What is really going on is that Intel is maturing as a company and starting to act like a giant company does. They reserve certain features for their higher end lines (IE xeon) and if you want those features you must step up to a xeon. This is just like how GM will reserve various features for Cadillac.

Anyhow if you hate how all this works it will only get worse when CPUs go BGA and are soldered onto the motherboard, because now you wont even be able to pair a high end chip like a 2700k with a $100 motherboard. They will force you to at least a $150 motherboard.
Click to expand...

It's something to make them have a presence in the market. It's for the brand name recognition, and that is worth doing even if it was at a loss, which, they're not.

The improvements are geared towards mobile. That doesn't mean that some can be modified to fit the enthusiast market, but the improvements aren't geared for the enthusiast market. There's a big difference between doing improvements geared for mobile with modifying for enthusiast, and doing improvements geared for enthusiasts.
 
drescherjm said:
Hope AMD comes through with Excavator.
Click to expand...

pretty much this. Athlon/Opteron made Intel wake up and compete. The P4 was a turd. Intel is kicking ass now, but if they can get away with it they will have no problem selling crap in a box again.
 
Tsumi said:
It's something to make them have a presence in the market. It's for the brand name recognition, and that is worth doing even if it was at a loss, which, they're not.

The improvements are geared towards mobile. That doesn't mean that some can be modified to fit the enthusiast market, but the improvements aren't geared for the enthusiast market. There's a big difference between doing improvements geared for mobile with modifying for enthusiast, and doing improvements geared for enthusiasts.
Click to expand...

I am just pointing out that giving use unlocked CPUs doesn't matter to business, mobile, or anyone else, its a direct shot at enthusiasts, IE we are not completely off their radar. They know we exists, they sponsor gaming tournaments etc.... Are they going to run an entire fab and architecture just for us, nope probably not but neither does AMD or anyone else.
 
Really said:
The current policy:

C*snip*

Therefore, maybe you're wrong to not give everything at every moment.
Click to expand...


I like your name except it needs to have a question mark at the end of it:

Really?

Seems more appropriate.
 
Last edited:
zandor said:
If I had a single CPU box for file serving I wouldn't have to run one of my quads as much. It only needs 1-2 cores to deliver 700MB/s off disk to my desktop*,
Click to expand...

Disable the unneeded cores in the Bios.
 
Why the hell would you want to produce more babies? With automation and computers there is nothing for them to do.
 
I think the mainstream socket K models and rebadged Xeons are intended as the "give me all you got" models. Your primary concern is 125W+ sockets, and that's not what the vast majority of the market wants. It's probably nice to think of your niche interests as what the world wants, but it's not the reality.

I'd also like it if Intel would continue to push the top end performance with both IPC increases and higher clock speeds (in say a 125W TDP), but that doesn't seem to be the long term strategy for a shrinking PC market. The desktop CPU manufacturing process Intel uses is tuned more for low power in typical tasks in order to increase power efficiency each generation. There probably isn't enough interest/customers for Intel to tweak the process for faster stock speeds, especially in the absence of any competition.
 
Are all the people complaining about these CPU generations actually running applications that are CPU-bound on a frequent basis?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top