This isn't what Intel is doing here.
If you want to call it that, I don't care.
When I left the semiconductor industry, they were starting to deal with the realities requiring the low-k dielectrics that are now absolutely required. SOI (silicone on insulator) was an established process, but we weren't using it in 98 to 02, but in my prior job in the industry, we did experiment with sapphire wafers (SOS,) before 98.
I don't think anyone was selling smaller than a 130nm technology at the time. We were still doing 250nm in 2002, a little behind the leaders like Intel. We were just starting to use trench designs a couple years before I left, and planning to start commercial copper processes.
I understand ElNono's lengthy post. Did you? Layer deposition becomes more critical because CMP is only meant to compensate for step height ratios. Our problem as the company didn't buy good enough deposition equipment and our CMP equipment couldn't compensate for going smaller than 250nm. CMP is required for a flat surface for focusing in photo-lithography. All these things must come together, and more failures occur at this level of miniaturization. For that reason, the intentional binning of products into lower classed bins would be reduced, but I doubt it's entirely eliminated.
He doesn't get that and he doesn't understand how everyone jumping on him is doing so because he brings up irrelevant information and then acts like they're trying to prove him wrong on that.
Its not the first time he's done this, and I'm sure it won't be the last.
OK, what did I miss?
The HDFury 2/3 will take the input of a HDMI signal (with and without HDCP) and output it to component/VGA, effectively allowing you to use your old monitor/tv with hardware that requires HDCP. Be warned that the HDCP consortium might at some point decide to revoke the key for the chip the Fury uses, thus rendering it useless. That said, it's been around for ages...
I dispute that notion when it comes to CPUs made by Intel at this point in time (which happens to be the topic at hand).
In the past production yielded a good amount of perfectly working units. In the past, it was actually hard to rescue a bad chip, because the design was far from modular (I'm referring to the pre-68020 era).
However, we're not in the past anymore.
The die for a single core vs a dual core vs a quad core is pretty different. It makes sense, because the cost of creating the die design has gone down considerably from times past, and they can pack much more dies of a single processor type on a wafer that way.
There's also the fact that with AMD supplying compatible chips, the price points you see at this time actually paint a good picture of yield of different dies. An Extreme Edition type of i7 CPU costs an arm and a leg in general because it's really hard for Intel to obtain a chip of such quality with the current manufacturing process. They don't need to cripple those to, say, supply i7 960 CPUs for half the price, simply because most of the yield on the wafer are going to be i7-960 quality dies.
You need to first understand that you're comparing orange to apples.
To give an analogy that I think it's apt, this is like Ford selling you a car that maxes out at 40mph, and you having to pay extra to 'unlock' the extra speed.
You might think that it's a good business model for Ford, but it's undeniably lame as .
I'm not complaining. I think it's super lame.
BTW, to this day, Intel CPUs still do not use SOI. I don't know if it's a patent issue or what exactly, but baffles the mind.
I googled your advice, seems a competent option.
Graci
...and I am not that bright to have known about it before today. Yesterday was the first time I had ever heard of HDCP.
Way it goes.
What did I miss?
What didn't I understand?Intel websites confirm -- that lets you download software to unlock extra threads and cache on the new Pentium G6951 processor. Hardware.info got their hands on an early sample of the chip and discovered it's actually a full 1MB of L3 cache that's enabled plus HyperThreading support, which translates to a modest but noticeable upgrade. This isn't exactly an unprecedented move, as chip companies routinely sell hardware-locked chips all the time in a process known as binning, but there they have a simpler excuse -- binned chips are typically sold with cores or cache locked because that part of their silicon turned out defective after printing.
I was explaining this was a common practice of the past, and it appears they continued I think it was SX models that sometimes came from perfectly good DX models, but that's a long time to remember specifics. Just couldn't re-enabled the feature once it was taken out.
What is the price difference between the different G6951 processors anyway? I don't know, and there are too many search results from this controversy.
Would you prefer to buy a lesser one for less money, then later pay more money than you did at first for a whole new one, or pay less to upgrade?
You and the computer makers have an option. Without the G6951, you would be buying the G6950 and upgrading to the G6952 or a different CPU at full price ind installation if you pay someone else to do it.
I've been out of the loop with Intel folks for I think 9 years, but they use to have advanced proprietary methods others don't use. The probably still do.
It was interesting during the short time work I did contract work at Intel's Portland Development facility.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
