Re: Device advice...

From	"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	aus.computers
Subject	Re: Device advice...
Date	2016-09-06 06:35 +1000
Message-ID	<e36394Fibh7U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(9 earlier) <nqi8oj$lm6$2@gioia.aioe.org> <e342tdF3bqtU2@mid.individual.net> <nqimu9$13tp$1@gioia.aioe.org> <e34e0tF5ls1U2@mid.individual.net> <nqje8n$565$1@gioia.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw


"Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message 
news:nqje8n$565$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:
>>>>>> "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.
>
> How massive?

Massively 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.
>
> So the number of active components in the CPU is not directly
> related to the number of failures during manufacture.

Wrong, of course it is.

>>>> 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

> That just sounds like a challenge in CPU design, how does
> it increase the manufacturing cost?

Because none of that is there on the cpus that don’t need cooling.

>> 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.

> A built-in temperature sensor costs amost nothing.

It isnt the temperature sensor that’s the cost.

>>> Otherwise the average cost of PC CPUs would have gone up over time
>>
>> They have.
>
> Unfortunately I can't find any accurate tables of historical
> CPU price data to disprove you with.

There is no such thing.

> However the cost of computer equipment as a
> whole has been on a steep decline since the 90s:
> http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/long-term-price-trends-for-computers-tvs-and-related-items.htm

Irrelevant to the cost of the cpu.

> So I think it's unlikely that CPUs prices happen to have been
> going up while the cost of everything else has been going down.

They have anyway with the highest performance desktop cpus.

> Time for a citation from you.

Nope.

>>> 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.
>
> They're not made at all now.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

What the fuck do you 'think' is used in the lowest
performance tablets ? Intel i7 cpus that haven't done
very well in the quality checks ? Even a terminal fuckwit
such as yourself should be able to open one and
see that the cpu used is nothing even remotely
like an i7.

> But they _weren't_ MUCH cheaper
> compared to today's CPUs either.

Wrong, as always.

>>>> 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.

> For someone so abusive, it's amazing how you
> appear to make a very honest businessman.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

>>> 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.
>
> Why?

Because they are MUCH harder to make and require
MUCH more expensive equipment to make them.

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