Slashdot Mirror
The Economics of Chips With Many Cores
meanonymous writes "HPCWire reports that a unique marketing model for 'manycore' processors is being proposed by University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign researchers. The current economic model has customers purchasing systems containing processors that meet the average or worst-case computation needs of their applications. The researchers contend that the increasing number of cores complicates the matching of performance needs and applications and makes the cost of buying idle computing power increasingly prohibitive. They speculate that the customer will typically require fewer cores than are physically on the chip, but may want to use more of them in certain instances. They suggest that chips be developed in a manner that allows users to pay only for the computing power they need rather than the peak computing power that is physically present. By incorporating small pieces of logic into the processor, the vendor can enable and disable individual cores, and they offer five models that allow dynamic adjustment of the chip's available processing power."
I don't want to "rent" the processing power of my own computer, thank you. Nor do I want to "rent" my operating system, or my music, or movies. I buy those things, and I'm free to do with them as I wish.
Renting your own possessions back to you is the sweetest dream of all hardware, software and "entertainment" manufacturers. Never let them do it.
we discovered a new way to think.
In mainframes you have pretty much a single vendor (IBM). Even in the days of Amdahl and Hitachi, once you were committed to a single vendor they had a lot of market power over you. So the vendor can set its own price, and squeeze as much money out of each customer as possible by making variable prices that relate to your ability and willingness to pay, rather than to the cost of manufacturing the equipment.
In a competitive market where 100-core processors cost $100 to produce, a company selling 50-core crippled ones for $101 and 100-core processors for $200 would quickly be pushed out of business by a company making the 100-core processors for $100 and selling them, uncrippled, for $101. I expect the Intel-AMD duopoly leaves Intel some scope to cripple its processors to maintain price differentials (arguably they already do that by selling chips clocked at a lower rate than they are capable of). But they couldn't indulge in this game too much because customers would buy AMD instead (unless AMD agreed to also cripple its multicore chips in the same way, which would probably be illegal collusion).
Compare software where you have arbitrary limits on the number of seats, incoming connections, or even the maximum file size that can be handled. It costs the vendor nothing more to compile the program with MAX_SEATS = 100 instead of 10, but they charge more for the 'enterprise' version because they can. But only for programs that don't have effective competition willing to give the customer what he wants. Certainly any attempt to apply this kind of crippling to Linux has failed in the market because you can easily change to a different vendor (see Caldera).
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
1. Everybody gets the same chip, but it will be crippled unless you pay the highest price.
2. Everybody gets the same uncrippled chip, but there's a FLOPS meter on it that phones home, and you pay Intel according to the amount of numbercrunching your chip did for you.
Both of these models seem completely retarded to me, although the first is already sort of in use in the CPU/GPU market. Have modern processors overshot our needs by so much that our big worry now is to find innovative ways to cripple them? If so, maybe this processor war we're fighting is ultimately not even worth winning.
Generally, unlocked or overclocked pc parts burn out faster than if they'd been left alone (e.g. the 6800LE I mentioned died a horrible death, and now doesn't work at all). However if the chip was DESIGNED to be able to be unlocked, it would be perfectly safe.
Design is one. Manufacturing is two. Chip manufacturing is not perfect. It is more likely that the disabled parts failed full test, but that parts were still working (and thus make it sellable as a downgraded chip). All you did was enable the defective parts. And then it blew. No surprise there.