Re: Device advice...

From	"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	aus.computers
Subject	Re: Device advice...
Date	2016-09-05 15:26 +1000
Message-ID	<e34e0tF5ls1U2@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(7 earlier) <nqft1t$1dlg$1@gioia.aioe.org> <e32a0sFkmr1U2@mid.individual.net> <nqi8oj$lm6$2@gioia.aioe.org> <e342tdF3bqtU2@mid.individual.net> <nqimu9$13tp$1@gioia.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw


"Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message 
news:nqimu9$13tp$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> news16 <news16@woa.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looking at the specs for those things just confuses me.
>>>>>>>> Their limitations are so obviously artificial considering
>>>>>>>> the state of technology. Makes you wonder how much
>>>>>>>> a $1000 laptop really costs to make.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The same as the $40 ones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong with the cpu used alone.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the manufacturer of the laptop, yes. But for the manufacturer
>>>>> of the CPU, one wonders whether, with the cost savings of mass
>>>>> production, it actually costs them much more to make the die of
>>>>> a high spec. consumer CPU compared to a low spec. one.
>>>>
>>>> Corse it does.
>>>
>>> Oh right. What extra costs are involved in the mass manufacture
>>> of high end consumer CPUs then?
>>
>> Obviously the number of active components in the
>> cpu where the failure of them renders the cpu useless.

> So what is the difference in failure rate
> between high end and low end CPUs then?

Massive.

> What's to say that the types of failures they experience
> are mostly constrained to single components rather
> than larger defects in the silicon die?

Nothing. In fact most of the failures that make a particular cpu
only good for the bin are not the failure of a single component.

>> And clearly it costs a lot more to make a cpu that produces
>> massive amounts of heat when running flat out, to get rid
>> of that heat compared with a much lower performance cpu
>> that doesn?t need anything like the same need to get rid of
>> that heat.

> That's mainly a problem with heatsinking and fan cooling outside
> the CPU than something to increase the cost of the CPU itself.

Wrong, as always. With low performance cpus that need no external
cooling at all, nothing adds to the cost of the cpu itself.

With high performance cpus that will die instantly without
very effective external cooling, much of the cost of the cpu
is providing a mechanism for all that heat to be removed
for the cpu and with the automatic shut down that all high
performance cpus have that stops them bursting into flames
if the fan stops or the heatsink comes off etc etc etc.

> Otherwise the average cost of PC CPUs would have gone up over time

They have.

> because old CPUs like the 386 produced far less heat than
> modern ones. In fact they often didn't even require heatsinking.

And they are MUCH cheaper because of that.

>> If they all cost the same to make, even someone as stupid
>> as you should be able to grasp that all laptops and tablets
>> and phones would all have the highest performance cpus
>> because there would be no point in the separate manufacturing
>> lines that are used to produce the much cheaper cpus.

> Yes there would. So that consumers who can afford it are
> enticed to buy more expensive models with their fancier CPUs.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

> Much of the extra price they pay being profit

Even more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

> because the actual manufacturing cost of the
> components may not be much higher.

It is in fact MUCH higher.

Back to aus.computers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Device advice... Jeßus <j@j.invalid> - 2016-08-31 15:13 +1000
  Re: Device advice... "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 15:51 +1000
    Re: Device advice... Jeßus <j@j.invalid> - 2016-09-01 05:29 +1000
      Re: Device advice... "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 09:10 +1000
    Re: Device advice... Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-09-01 15:38 +0000
      Re: Device advice... "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 05:28 +1000
        Re: Device advice... Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-09-01 19:57 +0000
          Re: Device advice... "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 10:33 +1000
            Re: Device advice... Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-09-02 18:50 +0000
              Re: Device advice... "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 11:05 +1000
  Re: Device advice... Pelican <water-birds@sea.somewhere.org.ir> - 2016-08-31 16:07 +1000
    Re: Device advice... SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2016-08-31 19:41 +1000
      Re: Device advice... Jeßus <j@j.invalid> - 2016-09-01 05:34 +1000
        Re: Device advice... not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2016-08-31 23:30 +0000
          Re: Device advice... Pelican <water-birds@sea.somewhere.org.ir> - 2016-09-01 09:49 +1000
          Re: Device advice... Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 13:05 +1000
            Re: Device advice... Jeßus <j@j.invalid> - 2016-09-07 08:53 +1000
          Re: Device advice... news16 <news16@woa.com.au> - 2016-09-03 03:06 +0000
            Re: Device advice... "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 15:29 +1000
              Re: Device advice... not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2016-09-04 01:23 +0000
                Re: Device advice... news16 <news16@woa.com.au> - 2016-09-04 03:05 +0000
                Re: Device advice... "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 20:13 +1000
                Re: Device advice... "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 20:06 +1000
                Re: Device advice... not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2016-09-04 22:55 +0000
                Re: Device advice... "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-05 12:17 +1000
                Re: Device advice... not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2016-09-05 02:57 +0000
                Re: Device advice... "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-05 15:26 +1000
                Re: Device advice... Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2016-09-05 09:35 +0000
                Re: Device advice... "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2016-09-05 21:19 +1000
                Re: Device advice... Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-09-05 19:09 +0000
                Re: Device advice... "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 06:35 +1000
                Re: Device advice... not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2016-09-05 23:07 +0000
                Re: Device advice... "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 10:19 +1000
                Re: Device advice... not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2016-09-07 23:14 +0000
                Re: Device advice... "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 11:12 +1000
                Re: Device advice... F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-06 12:56 +1000
                Re: Device advice... not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2016-09-06 23:09 +0000
                Re: Device advice... Jeßus <j@j.invalid> - 2016-09-07 09:11 +1000
                Re: Device advice... "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 10:50 +1000
          Re: Device advice... Jeßus <j@j.invalid> - 2016-09-07 08:52 +1000
        Re: Device advice... SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2016-09-01 22:38 +1000
          Re: Device advice... Jeßus <j@j.invalid> - 2016-09-07 08:55 +1000
    Re: Device advice... Jeßus <j@j.invalid> - 2016-09-01 05:33 +1000
      Re: Device advice... Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-09-01 15:20 +0000
        Re: Device advice... Jeßus <j@j.invalid> - 2016-09-07 08:57 +1000
  Re: Device advice... Jeßus <j@j.invalid> - 2016-09-08 16:10 +1000

csiph-web