• aard@kyu.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      192
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Intel is well known for requiring a new board for each new CPU generation, even if it is the same socket. AMD on the other hand is known to push stuff to its physical limits before they break compatibility.

      • neo@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        5 months ago

        But why? Did Intel make a deal with the board manufacturers? Is this tradition from the days when they build boards themselves?

        I thought they just didn’t care and wanted as little restrictions for their chip design as possible, but if this actually works without drawbacks, that theory is out the window.

        • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          47
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Just another instance of common anti-consumer behavior from multi billion dollar companies who have no respect for the customers that line their pockets.

        • radau@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          5 months ago

          They used to dominate the consumer market prior to Ryzen so might have something to do with it but I got no evidence lol

        • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          5 months ago

          Intel also sells the chipset and the license to the chipset software; the more boards get sold, the more money they make (as well as their motherboard partners, who also get to sell more, which encourages more manufacturers to make Intel boards and not AMD)

        • tabular@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          There are many motherboard manufactors but only 2 CPU manufacturers (for PC desktop). Board makers don’t “makes deals” so much as have the terms dictated to them. Even graphics card manufacturers made them their bitch back when multi-GPU was a thing - it was them who had to sell their Crossfire/SLL technology on their motherboards.

    • just_another_person@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      5 months ago

      They’ve been pulling this shit since the early days. Similar tricks were employed in the 486 days to swap out chips, and again in the Celeron days. I think they switched to the slot style intentionally to keep selling chips to a point lol

          • bruhduh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            We have open source designs (RISCV also have GPU designs) but we don’t have manufacture power open sourced yet

              • bruhduh@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                No, there isn’t yet, there’s the most i could find, but it’s not machines

            • umbrella@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              i dream of a world where the process will cheapen out enough like pcb design, where you can just submit the design you want and they will fab it out for you.

              with more players coming into the game because of sanctions, i hope we are now on the path.

              • bruhduh@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                Yes, i hope so too, as for now, semiconductor lithography at home is impossible due how big and complex these machines are, so i have same opinion as you are

        • tal@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000498114.pdf

          Soviet Computer Technology: Little Prospect for Catching Up

          We believe that there are many reasons why the Soviets trail the United States in computer technology:

          • The Soviets’ centrally-planned economy does not permit adequate flexibility to design or manufacturing changes frequently encountered in computer production; this situation has often resulted in a shortage of critical components — especially for new products.
          • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            If you’re only response to criticism of capitalism is ((communism)), you may just be a cog in the corporate propaganda machine.

              • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                Marginally. The paper analyzes the capabilities as they existed in the 1980s, but doesn’t draw strong conclusions as to why that may be. It does demonstrate how reliance on central planning results in inadequaciea when said central planning is not operating well, though.

                The paper doesn’t really mention it but the central planning of the USSR was actively reeling from Brezhnev dying, Andropov dying, and Chernenko either dying or about to die at the time the CIA thing was written. So yeah, correct is an accurate if imprecise way to put it.

                • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Yeah it’s more a criticism of the ussr in the 80s. Central planning with more tech focus and more democracy would likely not face that specific issue.

                  But also there’s room for shit like kanban communism which definitely wouldn’t have these problems

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        IIRC, the slot CPU thing was because they wanted to get the cache closer to the processor, but hadn’t integrated it on-die yet. AMD did the same thing with the original Athlon.

        On a related note, Intel’s anticompetitive and anti- consumer tactics are why I’ve been buying AMD since the K6-2.

        • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          They had integrated the L2 on-die before that already with the Pentium Pro on Socket 8. IIRC the problem was the yields were exceptionally low on those Pentium Pros and it was specifically the cache failing. So every chip that had bad cache they had to discard or bin it as a lower spec part. The slot and SECC form factor allowed them to use separate silicon on a larger node by having the cache still be on-package (the SECC board) instead of on-die.

      • turmacar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        It’s been at least since the “big iron” days.

        Technician comes out to upgrade your mainframe and it consists of installing a jumper to enable the extra features. For only a few million dollars.