Slashdot Mirror
Intel Cuts Back on 820 Chipset Manufacturing
BRTB writes "It seems that Intel has actually done something right: realized that its new 820 chipset (with Rambus memory support and speed increases) is so expensive for computer builders and end users - on the order of $500 added to the cost of an 820-equipped machine - that it's decided to cut back on production. Check out the News.com article here."
Last time I looked there was a dearth athlon compatable motherboards.
I remember reading the benchmarks done by Dell on the 820 / Rambus. In all but one case (Word 2000) it was slower than 100Mhz SDRAM. I think this is why Intel is cutting production.
Last time I looked there was a dearth athlon compatable motherboards.
... And athlon mobos are easier to find than Slot 2 boards (virtually inexistant in retail)
Even here in france we have the FIC SD11, MSI and Gigabyte Athlon mobos available everywhere
Are you on crack man ?? Retail sales are like 40% Celeron, 40% K6-x and 20% for the rest (P2, P3, Cyrix, ...) AND the enthusiast/power user will get an Athlon, clearly not a Xeon. Why pay a TREMENDOUS amount of money for less performance ??
You didn't understand Moore's law. It's just stating that the number of transistors in INTEL processors doubles every 18 months. (nothing to do with POWER)
Intel P3 is about 9M transistors. Intel Celeron is about 20M transistors. NOW do you think the celeron is 2 twice as fast as the P3 ??? Anyway, P3 came AFTER celeron, and has half the number of transistors. SO moore's law WAS true for quite a long time, but now it's totally pointless.
Btw, your super-duper-1Ghz intel processors coming in 18 months are already surpassed (in processing power, not frequency) by Alphas and co.
You probably read the "5 atoms" things on the web and did not understand it quite well. It refers to transistor DENSITY, that's all.
I don't understand why Intel is so adament to support Rambus whereas memory makers would really like to forget it.
Intel bought some shares of Rambus Inc. sure, but frankly Rambus is a really small company compared with Intel, so I don't think it is a major point.
Technically, I'm not sure at all that Rambus is superior to cheaper alternatives: SDRAM at 133 MHz is only a first step: DDR SDRAM (which transfers data twice per clock cycle) should have a bandwith comparable to the Rambus memory AND they should have a LOWER LATENCY (and a lower price too!). So ?
For those who don't konow: the latency is also very,very important, the bandwith is not the only thing to look at... (especially the maximum theoretical bandwith!).
Actually, cards based on the Cirrus Laguna 3D chipset used 600 mhz RAMBUS RAM. Creative even made one, don't remember the name though. Must be something like Blaster .
You know, I was really looking forward to the 820 chipset. It was supposed to be the heart of my next system. However, Intel took a product that could have been a dominating force in the market (like the BX chipset) and killed it with their corporate marketing pedagogal greedy design decisions for the final product. Rambus was always questionable from day 1, and although it looks to be a viable technology in the long run, I think Intel stuck with it a little too stubbornly even as it faltered. I mean, it's kinda ridiculous for a consumer to pay a $200-$300 premium for new technologies that may not work so well in the short term due to bugs, or that are so far incompatible with anything else, or even that don't possess the performance to justify the cost. This wouldn't be true, though, if Rambus didn't have so many problems and wasn't so expensive. I even figure that with SDRAM prices where they are today, which are extremely high, that perhaps the separation of cost between the RAM technologies would shrink enough for Rambus to be considered a justified investment for a new system. I guess not. This is Intel's bad for holding back on the computer industry with a great chipset just so it can push one friggen product that's late out 'the gate and not so great. And they also failed to push down the price of Rambus too, which is the fatal factor. Alas, no new system for me right now...
So Intel is scaling back for now. No biggie. The 820 isn't going to be adopted that quickly, anyway - too much investment is out there in SDRAM for manufacturers and users to just leap to RDRAM. Eventually, that may make more sense but not yet. All this means is less inventory built up in the channel, and hopefully it means the slight bump they've had in BX availability will go away during the ramp-up.
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
I can't believe I had to read this far down before I found anyone who saw how funny this is. It's especially funny after reading that "Intel finally did something right..."
Some people are just gluttons for punishment. Unbelievable.
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
Moore's law does not apply uniquely to Intel processors. Moore happened to be an Intel co-founder, but his observation was intended to apply equally across all vendors. I refer you to Moore's 1997 comments on Moore's law.
You are, however, correct in that Moore's law is a predictor of transistor density. Some tech writer who felt the need to oversimplify must have been responsible for the transitor desnity=power thing.
As for the transistor density of the chip (and the conductive properties of the silicon at small densitites), that's secondary compared to the "how do we keep all these transitors from frying each other" problem. Heat gets to be a real issue.
The whole Rambus issue really seems like Intel grabbed onto a technology thinking that just because they supported it it would become the standard. They're much too used to promoting a technology they've developed and it becoming the defacto if not du jure standard because they own most of the market. We were stuck at 66 MHz for much too long because Intel didn't want to make a move on the bus speed though other processor manufacturers were champing at the bit to go higher on the bus speed. Hell, Intel's socket 7 chipsets didn't even support SDRAM properly until the 430TX and even then it was crippled by the 64MB cachable limit.
Even though Intel looks like they've made a mistake and are behind in their chipset designs, it doesn't mean anything. They've been willing to get as much as 6 months behind and then sweep in with a processor/chipset combination that's just enough faster than the competition that all the vendors rush back to the Intel camp. I sure hope AMD can scale the Athlon fast enough to avoid getting Intelled yet again.
And also some forgotten 3D deaccellerator made by Cirrus i think.
And has anything really happened to RAMBUS since the nintendo came out? If Moore's law applied to rambus shouldn't we have speed in the multi GHz range by now (they talked about memory clock speeds around 800 MHz back in 1995).
The whole Rambus issue really seems like Intel grabbed onto a technology thinking that just because they supported it it would become the standard. They're much too used to promoting a technology they've developed and it becoming the defacto if not du jure standard because they own most of the market. We were stuck at 66 MHz for much too long because Intel didn't want to make a move on the bus speed though other processor manufacturers were champing at the bit to go higher on the bus speed. Hell, Intel's socket 7 chipsets didn't even support SDRAM properly until the 430TX and even then it was crippled by the 64MB cachable limit.
Even though Intel looks like they've made a mistake and are behind in their chipset designs, it doesn't mean anything. They've been willing to get as much as 6 months behind and then sweep in with a processor/chipset combination that's just enough faster than the competition that all the vendors rush back to the Intel camp. I sure hope AMD can scale the Athlon fast enough to avoid getting Intelled yet again.
while we are on the topic of rambus, here's something i have wondered about. you constantly hear that rambus has a latency problem compared current sdram. however, if you visit the rambus webpage, you see a link to a paper titled lowest latency with the highest bandwidth. would anyone care to comment on these claims that rambus has the "lowest latency?"
Let me get this right. Intel is helping the customer *save* money by cutting production, which will further drive up the prices on the chipsets when they are released (read: supply and demand)
First of all let me clarify that when I say MHz I am referring to the data cycles and not the clock cycles. Its much easier to talk this way when dealing with products that transfer data on both the rising and falling edge. First of all to get Rambus with 2x the bandwidth of 200 MHz DDR ram it would have to be going at 1.6GHz. Why such a high number? Well very simple Rambus Ram has a quarter the bus width of DDR ram. 16 vs. 64 bit. so your 800MHz Rambus ram only equals the 200Mhz DDR ram. I should also put in that there is also 266MHz DDR ram. Letting DDR not only equal but exceed the bandwidth of rambus ram at a dramatically lower cost.
Moore's law isn't the issue. The high cost problems for DRDRAM are fivefold. First the rambus access cell stuck onto a normal DRAM core plus the necessary changes to the DRAM core itself adds about 25% to die area. What's more the RAC doesn't scale down with the rest of the DRAM going to a smaller feature size process. Second, even in 0.22 um DRAM processes the AC functional yield of DRDRAM is about 30%. This means that out of 100 DRDRAM parts made and have all bits functional, only 30 of them can run at 800 Mbps. The others have to be binned to 600 or 700 Mbps speed grade parts which no system house will touch with a ten foot pole (lower performance than PC100 SDRAM). Third, these parts need *very* expensive production testers AND these testers can only test up 16 parts at a time compared to 64 for an SDRAM tester. Fourth, DRDRAM compatible motherboards and memory cards must be made with more expensive impedance controlled PWB technology. Finally, every DRDRAM and DRDRAM compatible chipset sold pays a small put significant royalty to Rambus inc. Some of these factors will lesson over time. But the 64 Mbit question is why would anyone pay 10 or 20% more (let alone the 50 to 100% seen now) for memory devices with significantly longer latency, thermal management problems, PWB design headaches *YET* offers little or no system level performance advantage over PC100 SDRAM (and evidence exists to show that formany apps DRDRAM is actually *slower* than PC100).
well, it wasn't so much a LAW as a Business Plan:
Step 1: destroy all likely competitors to chip business -
Step 2: ramp progress at a rate controlled to maximize profits over the long haul.
(that rate is x2/18mo.)
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Creative Labs had a product out a few years or so ago called the Graphics Blaster 3D (based on a Cirrus Logic chipset). This product had 4 MB of RAMBUS memory.
a tures.html 1 997/p970303.html
:)...
http://www.soundblaster.com/graphics/gb%2D3d/fe
http://www.soundblaster.com/pressroom/releases/
I would post in HTML, but I'm kinda pressed for time (and I'm typing this on an HPC
See my above comment. The Creative Lab Graphics Blaster 3D has 4 MB of RAMBUS memory. Of course it sucked (having a Cirrus Logic chipset and all :), but it DOES exist and you could probably buy a gross of them for $1000. I'm pretty sure that there were a LOT of boards based on this CL chipset and all had RAMBUS memory.
Shine on, you crazy diamond.
Like all other PC hardware, They'll get cheaper.
Don't forget Moore's law - 18 months, double the power. The good thing is though, the prices are dropping while the power goes up. RAMBUS tech is new and not yet fully explored.
I will garantee that next month they'll be rethinking their cut back stategy.
Dan. -- So what if it's spelt wrong, nobody's perfect
Some people would like to pay for speed. I'm not
saying that Rambus would deliver it, vis-a-vis
DDR, or other techniques, but the average end
user doesn't buy PentiumIII's or Xeon's either!
Well all things considered the cost and technology would be more appropriate for a high end server anyway. But don't worry kiddies, soon we'll have supercomputers on our desks, or better wearing them.
I mean, Intel wants to go for some expensive thingies alone, and if there is no support, Intel either drops it or end up holding the thing by itself.
Is this type of story even worth a mention on
Additionally, there _are_ alternatives, not only the via chipset, but also the SDRAM.
Ultimately the market will be the final judge for everthing. You can come up with all the ding-a-lings you want, if the market doesn't buy it, you will end up with a warehouse full of ding-a-lings.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
I have a buddy who runs a computer store, and that's pretty much what he sells. Xenon's and PIII's. And his clientle is pretty average.
Well all the server manufacturers for various reasons have strikken DRDRAM of their roadmaps for the near future... So the desktop is really the only place Intel can push those DRDRAM chips.
Several cheap vid cards of wich I have forgotten the name's now did use Rambus, thats the old Rambus mind. DRDRAM is a new and improved spec from the same people.
Didn't anyone tell you? Moore's Law is OVER, man... it's fucking OVER. It's all downhill from here. From August on, the cost of transitors will be doubling every 18 months.
Moore's Law is passe. It's OVER.
Intel actually got a clue and listened to the consumers?!
They didnt try and shove it down our throats regardless of the cost?
WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH INTEL!!
Ok, now remove the stick from your arsehole and talk nicely.
Moore's law will max out when the silicone hits the 5 atom barrier. That is, when silicone is only 5 atoms thick, it loses some of it's properties. That does not mean a) we can't use something else and b) we're at the 5 atom barrier yet, although we will be soon.
BTW, seen any rumors on 1-2GHz processors yet? Gee let me quickly calculate, yup they'll be her in under 18 months, hey gee they're twice as fast as the ones we got now. Gee, how about that.
Dan. -- So what if it's spelt wrong, nobody's perfect
I was at a party 2 weeks ago with several Dell employees, one of whom was a systems engineer working on Dell systems (I won't specify line, lest I get him / her / it -- who I'll call specify by the male pronoun for convenience -- in hot water).
/. mention implied, but rather for some tweaking so it works better.
...
He said that the 820 was a particularly buggy chipset, and that it was causing them a lot of frustration, more so than previous chipset releases. I told him that it was being marketed as Intels most advanced chipset, and his response was (I'm paraphrasing as best I can) "they ought to call it Intel's most advanced piece of crap!" He had other harsh words for it, such as unreliable and inconsistent, and as in the subject line.
So maybe it's being cut back on not just for "the sake of consumers" as this
Also, as others have pointed out, it doesn't make any sense to *cut* production on a chipset which people are willing to pay for in order to gain performance improvements. Someone mentioned Xeon, and I think it's relevant. No one is forcing you to buy a system with a certain set of components, and the bleeding-edge carries a premium. So what? That just means I can't buy it until it's not the bleeding edge.;)
Again, this is hearsay, but from a good source
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Moore's law is at best a marketing idea that only applies to Intel Corp. RAMBUS tech is NOT new. It's been used for quite some time now. Rambus is great for video cards (where throughput is more important than latency) but keep in mind that for a "normal" use as main memory in a computer, Rambus is actually slightly SLOWER than SDRAM (so it will be SLOWER than DDR-SDRAM and DDR2).
It depends on your application. I'm writing some scientific applications which like many other scientific applications, are constrained by memory bandwidth. With careful programming, high latency isn't a problem, but high bandwidth is necessary. Rambus RAM will provide 2x the bandwidth as DDR SDRAM, so I'm all for Rambus.