Yup. Make 2-3 dies to cost-effectively service the major server tiers and maybe have 2-3 bins each dictated by where defects are most likely to land.Intel really needs to simplify their overly segmented CPU lineup.
If he CPU DLC you got is a core count upgrade, the only way you are getting that out of EPYC-based systems is a physical CPU swap which is far more labor-intensive and will require even more extensive re-validation since you have a whole different chip instead of the same chip with fewer things still pay-walled.He also needs to do absolutely nothing on the EPYCs, since they already have said feature enabled.
Some features make sense to build in regardless of whether you paid for them because the true added cost is negligible compared to the cost of having multiple different SKUs. Things like heated seats and steering wheel cost a dollar or two in materials to implement over the cost of all of the other tech already built into seats these days. You aren't going to see materially significant features like battery pack sizes and single/dual/triple motor turned into DLCs. (Though they do have a "performance" unlock option on some models where you are basically paying insurance for the increased likelihood of battery and motor failure from running them a bit harder than stock.)Tesla showed this business model (paying for a thign with features you have to pay more for to use) and it will be future sadly...
I legitimately believed that "DLC battery capacity" has been a part of the Tesla business model since day 1.S You aren't going to see materially significant features like battery pack sizes .... turned into DLCs. (Though they do have a "performance" unlock option on some models where you are basically paying insurance for the increased likelihood of battery and motor failure from running them a bit harder than stock.)
Nobody wants you to own anything anymore. I think I even saw an add on TV that sounded like a treadmill with certain features that costs "x" per month. It didn't look like you could just buy the treadmill and not use those features.Honestly, the idea that you have to pay a licensing fee to use purchased hardware is sickening and disturbing. It is anti-customer and it's wasteful.
This kind of thing is the reason why market regulation is so important. "Right to repair" would be nice, but we first need "Right to own" and "Right to use".
The short of it is that they need those variants to compete in the market. Maybe not to the extreme they do it, but it is "necessary" to success. The short of it boils down to people don't want to pay for the features they don't need, and even a couple dollars off the price can make or break a sale. Linus(LTT) mentioned a similar predicament in regards to motherboard variants. Being able to offer a $3 cheaper variant means being able to capture appreciably more sales.The other way to reduce the logistics costs of marketing a billion variants of each CPU with razor-thin arbitrary differentiations would be get rid of the stupidly super-fine arbitrary market segmentation.
Making fully functional full-size CPUs only to disable most of their capabilities and sell/lease them back as hardware DLCs sounds stupid.
Unless Intel's yields are nearly 100%, this models means that 20-30% of chips that aren't 100.0% functional but could previously be sold as lower-end SKUs will need to be chucked out since they cannot do at least some of the DLC upgrades.The new system Intel is introducing doesn't really do anything different than the existing system, except give the purchaser more value for their purchase. Instead of hardware limiting fully functional chips to meet the needs of the different variants, they're software limiting the chips instead.
Nothing dishonest here.Intel copying the EA business model: make a full product, then strip its features to sell separately. Instead of selling one full processor for $1000, sell one crippled processor for $1000, then demand $100 for re-enabling each feature. I know that's capitalism and market rules and all, but it sounds like dishonest money to me (EA customers agree on that). Hopefully that gives more sales to AMD.
If you re-introduce SKUs to cover every salvageable defect combination, you end up with dozens of SKUs again. Kind of defeats the point of using DLC-based CPUs to avoid having dozens of SKUs.Intel probably has very good yields, but the parts that don't bin out as 100% can still be sold under a SKU that does not offer the upgrade feature.
So hopefully this effort to simplify their overly segmented CPU lineup crashes and burns, but then you want to simplify their overly segmented CPU lineup?Hopefully this latest effort crashes and burns too. Intel really needs to simplify their overly segmented CPU lineup.
Selling something with all the features at the same price as the competitor sells the base unit is the surest way to go belly up, you loose all your profit doing that and if you are successful you take away all the sales of the competitor, so neither company is making any money, that's how you turn a healthy market into a dead one.The thing with paywalling trivial "premium" features is that in a healthy market, your competitors won't let you milk trivial improvements as "premium" for long before including them or something equivalent as standard in their own similar products.
Your example is exactly what binning is: sell the same product with half the performance/speed/cores for less money. That is all good.Nothing dishonest here.
Many years ago, the company I worked for developed an upgraded version of a "line printer" that was twice as fast as the competing product. It was the first printer in the market that printed in both directions. The upgrade added cost to the product, requiring engineering, another home sensor and a line buffer.
When it came to selling the printer, the customers were not willing to pay extra for it, using the competitors product as to set the value of our product. We then developed a 'low cost' version of the product, and offered an upgrade kit as well, installed by our technicians. We sold the base model at the same price as our competitors product and were able to charge more for the faster version of the product.
The upgrade kit, really a software license, required the technician to clean the printer and remove a jumper.
Who was dishonest? The company I worked for or the customers who claimed they did not need the high speed feature? I say neither.
Intel probably has very good yields, but the parts that don't bin out as 100% can still be sold under a SKU that does not offer the upgrade feature.