Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
). 
) But thats not this case 
Smaller DIE = lower cost not higher. You are thinking of just basic economics in which you charge more for the best stuff. That is true in computers, to a point. The problem is that you dont buy 1000 CPUs at $160 a pop. and expect to sell them over the next 2-3 years. If you cant sell 1000 CPUS NOW you dont buy that many. Because in a year that wont cost that much.
1 year turn around is a best case scenario. Certain things differ from that. Optical drives, cases and many peripherals. IB was looked for from the start with SB. IMHO, SB is the better buy assuming it saves you money. (Prices drop because people do have to sell off old stock.. however, SB is still better for the average user, just clocks better *unless* under cold. (which was a limitation designed into SB...but don't get me started...cache multi was directly equal to SB core multi. Not so on IB heance the free +10X multis.)
Your link mentions the rumour and also provides evidence it might not be true. By bringing it up you skew appearance into putting merit behind the accusation that yields are low, despite the same article claiming IB sales are so high it is fast becoming half of Intel's revenue.
I am not saying that Intel would tell the truth, but considering they have how many models available now, and did they just release 13 more or is that in the pipe? I forget, time is a weird thing when you hit 40 lol. I see no reason to doubt them. Would be great if they outsourced FABs so we could compare information from other sources, but it is all closed book.
I just hit newegg for 3rd gen core products and see 9 available purchase options. In fact I didnt even have to dial down to CPUs, I hit PC hardware and got a "shop for 3rd gen" link right there. Newegg is first to go out of stock when something is so "in demand" as Intel claims and obviously not in short supply as rumours say. So I say BS on that rumour.
they might be having FAB issues, not saying that, they are not having supply issues. You want an IB, go buy one. They are available EVERYWHERE.
EDIT: I could get into all kinds of discussion about how IB sales are high because so many skipped SB (or vica versa), except enthusiasts of course which bought both. Could get into the solder vs paste issue on the cores driving sales down to release enthusiast purchases and make more models available for the Dell/HP crowd, all kinds of theories, none of which are substantiated. I like theory don't get me wrong, I find theory way more interesting than boring statistics. (Except in conjuction with theory
Give me a bit to track down the link.
Edit - Until then I'll leave you to peruse this.
I will look into this more. 
EDIT: I could get into all kinds of discussion about how IB sales are high because so many skipped SB (or vica versa), except enthusiasts of course which bought both. Could get into the solder vs paste issue on the cores driving sales down to release enthusiast purchases and make more models available for the Dell/HP crowd, all kinds of theories, none of which are substantiated. I like theory don't get me wrong, I find theory way more interesting than boring statistics. (Except in conjuction with theory
Intel said Intel sales are high.
if offended I can provide a 1-800 number for you to call , if it passes the filters. Seriously though, it was just a joke, it fit perfectly I could not resist, the 1-800 thing also a joke, relax, smoke something, but seriously this is a CPU discussion right? Completely different architecture. I do not see anyone in this thread complaining that 22nm SRAM is too high cost and has FAB failure issues. Intel said Intel sales are high.
Stock price went from 23 something last year to 27 this year?
I assume you meant sales but I can understand the difference when listening to PR pieces. (Not a bust on you just an attempt at humour)
Little confused by your link.
fully depleted silcon is too expensive "we dont use that" according to the PDF. Yet 2-3 panels later... trigate technology relies on fully Depleted silicon.
So they DINT use it, but now they do.. why obfuscate? I hate PR pieces.
Anywho.. Yes I see your point about reduction of size introducing new costs, however thanks to inflation, R&D costs go up regardless of die shrink. IB launched at only what 10-20 bucks more than most places were selling SB for?
One must consider the ethereal quality of PC component prices when considering costs. Not only space but time. CPUS used to cost thousands of dollars. Now they are a few hundred at most unless you are going nutty. Despite R&D costs going up because of inflation, despite component cost going up because of inflation. IB is still cheaper than SB was based on SB launch prices. Right?
Why is that? Despite the R&D (a cost of doing PC business) despite the component cost, (actually incremental when you consider the amount of each material being used per chip) you still get an extra XX chips per wafer.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5789/the-ipad-24-review-32nm-a5-tested/
talking about ipad CPUs, but emphasizes the point in which he does also talk about. Couldn't find a good scale method but 45nm to 32nm hones in the point. Wafers are round. smaller the chip the more you can fit on it. (Why are wafers round why not square?)
45nm wafers produce 579 chips. 32nm 1019. Same cost of materials going in. almost twice that coming out.
You can increase cost and still come out even with a die shrink. Up to a 75% increase actually from 45nm to 32nm....) So yes.. the end users point of die shrink = lower cost is valid.
I wont go into details, but a 75% production increase even skewing it with a increased failure rate, and increase material base, still makes money.
Now all of a sudden Intel is an altruistic company that sells Ivy Bridge at a loss because it sucks? OF course they are making money, their stocks show it. IT fluctuates sure, but it is a currently volatile market and a company is not solely what its stock price is I get that.
Back to AMD though a company that ALSO does not sell things at a loss to improve market share. But does sell defective product in the hopes that people will buy them and try and unlock them into quasi function units. No warranty needed or provided. Saves a few hundred mill.
Neat idea..
EDIT: Sorry Bubba I took more than a half hour to write my post so didnt see yours. Bringing nvidia into the conversation though is not exactly relevant. Since, we know they had more issues with anyone with die shrinks including astronomically high fail rates. FAB difficulties or design??? No idea. I am not that smart. What I am saying is this is about CPU not GPUs. This is an AB conversation so C your way out.
(just an attempt at humour
In fact I dont see nVidia complaining about after their little snafu. If you linked to source not uploaded to imageshack you might get a more intelligent response.
Intel said Intel sales are high.
Stock price went from 23 something last year to 27 this year?
I assume you meant sales but I can understand the difference when listening to PR pieces. (Not a bust on you just an attempt at humour)
Little confused by your link.
fully depleted silcon is too expensive "we dont use that" according to the PDF. Yet 2-3 panels later... trigate technology relies on fully Depleted silicon.
So they DINT use it, but now they do.. why obfuscate? I hate PR pieces.
Anywho.. Yes I see your point about reduction of size introducing new costs, however thanks to inflation, R&D costs go up regardless of die shrink. IB launched at only what 10-20 bucks more than most places were selling SB for?
One must consider the ethereal quality of PC component prices when considering costs. Not only space but time. CPUS used to cost thousands of dollars. Now they are a few hundred at most unless you are going nutty. Despite R&D costs going up because of inflation, despite component cost going up because of inflation. IB is still cheaper than SB was based on SB launch prices. Right?
Why is that? Despite the R&D (a cost of doing PC business) despite the component cost, (actually incremental when you consider the amount of each material being used per chip) you still get an extra XX chips per wafer.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5789/the-ipad-24-review-32nm-a5-tested/
talking about ipad CPUs, but emphasizes the point in which he does also talk about. Couldn't find a good scale method but 45nm to 32nm hones in the point. Wafers are round. smaller the chip the more you can fit on it. (Why are wafers round why not square?)
45nm wafers produce 579 chips. 32nm 1019. Same cost of materials going in. almost twice that coming out.
You can increase cost and still come out even with a die shrink. Up to a 75% increase actually from 45nm to 32nm....) So yes.. the end users point of die shrink = lower cost is valid.
I wont go into details, but a 75% production increase even skewing it with a increased failure rate, and increase material base, still makes money.
Now all of a sudden Intel is an altruistic company that sells Ivy Bridge at a loss because it sucks? OF course they are making money, their stocks show it. IT fluctuates sure, but it is a currently volatile market and a company is not solely what its stock price is I get that.
Back to AMD though a company that ALSO does not sell things at a loss to improve market share. But does sell defective product in the hopes that people will buy them and try and unlock them into quasi function units. No warranty needed or provided. Saves a few hundred mill.
Neat idea..
EDIT: Sorry Bubba I took more than a half hour to write my post so didnt see yours. Bringing nvidia into the conversation though is not exactly relevant. Since, we know they had more issues with anyone with die shrinks including astronomically high fail rates. FAB difficulties or design??? No idea. I am not that smart. What I am saying is this is about CPU not GPUs. This is an AB conversation so C your way out.
(just an attempt at humour
In fact I dont see nVidia complaining about after their little snafu. If you linked to source not uploaded to imageshack you might get a more intelligent response.
Some time things get more expensive for the sake of saving battery power, wall power and increasing performance, shrinking transistors increases there speed.
