Quote from: william blake on February 25, 2020, 20:12:47
i see we both agreed that +500 for extra 2 cores is way too much.
configurability is the thing i like, regardless of the manufacturer or prices.
but, you are kinda wrong about sweet spot and diminishing returns :)
it was true, just a couple of years ago. 7nm zen 2 has changed everything, because now you can put neary infinite number of cores in the same tdp/socket, and there is no so desirable early "a bit extra", always overkill for you needs. 16 is too much for desktop, 64 is too much for hedt. look at the prices for exrta cores..they are nearly linear. now zen 2 brings something similar in laptops. 6 cores->8 cores is just 100 dollars/euro more.

Yes, I certainly wouldn't pay it unless I was desperate for the extra performance (and, apparently, couldn't go to competition).

Even if price per core scales nicely (and IIRC local prices, it doesn't always - I recall the 3950 being an outlier compared to both 8 and 12 core units), performance gains are not that cooperative. It depends on the workload and cost equation will depend on the rest of the computer. To some extent, AMD is just being nice as they're penetrating the market (fighting an uphill battle). Yes, the chiplet approach has undisputed advantages. And Intel had plenty of time to gradually inflate prices. Essentially, it's another level of clustering. Instead of having multiple sockets, you have multiple chiplets.

Of course you really can't, even putting aside the "nearly infinite". Because each core needs power and data. Divide and conquer. It's just simpler to design a 4 core chip than 16 core (not to mention 64 core). And defects in manufacture are cheaper (you discard just 4 cores rather than 16).

As I wrote, IIRC Apple is also asking just 100. It's really weird. :-) Then again, the 10 Gb Ethernet option for Mac Mini is also a decent deal considering the prices of cards. It's the RAM and storage where they go completely crazy. Funnily enough, in the MBP 16, the price for RAM (per GB) is the same as VRAM IIRC.

It's a shame they went with a 16:9 display. The Intel based Swift 3 has 3:2 (and Acer has some other 3:2 devices). I hate 16:9, especially on small screens. This farce, I mean trend, has to die. Yesterday was too late. Then they can give us, perhaps, some proper cursor keys. Yay. :-)

Quote from: _MT_ on February 25, 2020, 10:02:26
And again, it has little to do with configurability. You can ask the same ridiculous amount for a fixed configuration.

i see we both agreed that +500 for extra 2 cores is way too much.
configurability is the thing i like, regardless of the manufacturer or prices.
but, you are kinda wrong about sweet spot and diminishing returns :)
it was true, just a couple of years ago. 7nm zen 2 has changed everything, because now you can put neary infinite number of cores in the same tdp/socket, and there is no so desirable early "a bit extra", always overkill for you needs. 16 is too much for desktop, 64 is too much for hedt. look at the prices for exrta cores..they are nearly linear. now zen 2 brings something similar in laptops. 6 cores->8 cores is just 100 dollars/euro more.
https://www.saturn.de/de/product/_acer-swift-3-sf314-42-r2vj-2636661.html
https://www.saturn.de/de/product/_acer-swift-3-sf314-42-r8gk-2636559.html

Quote from: william blake on February 23, 2020, 18:16:06
HOW "not linear", to what degree? intel himself says this extra 2 cores cost 161(556-395)usd, eurocom says 483 usd. so, what are you trying to say is a mystery for me.

Well, to me, it has sometimes looked more like exponential but I have never tried fitting a curve. :-) I imagine it wasn't as dramatic, it certainly wasn't linear. No change in core count needed. It can have something to do with expected market volume or yields. The sweet spot is never at the top end. Whether it's performance per dollar or performance per watt (even after accounting for the whole computer which should be advantageous for more powerful chips). You always hit diminishing returns. As I wrote, I didn't know the recommended prices so I couldn't judge who is to blame. 500 extra is a lot, no question about it. And again, it has little to do with configurability. You can ask the same ridiculous amount for a fixed configuration.

I haven't even payed attention to how much are others asking. To me, the 8 core mobile chips are largely disqualified by cooling. Thinking back about it, I seem to recall Apple charging 100 for an upgrade from 6 core to the weaker 8 core in the MBP 16 (and another 200 for the more powerful 8 core). It seems uncharacteristic of them to ask less than what Intel wants (I imagine they're the same chips). It completely slipped my mind when I made that comment. I think that's the only machine with an 8 core mobile chip where I even bothered to look at the price.

Quote from: _MT_ on February 23, 2020, 15:59:03
The relationship between price and performance is certainly not linear. You have to decide for yourself whether it's worth it to you.

HOW "not linear", to what degree? intel himself says this extra 2 cores cost 161(556-395)usd, eurocom says 483 usd. so, what are you trying to say is a mystery for me.

Quote from: william blake on February 23, 2020, 11:41:09
configurable devices is a very nice idea in general.
but not with this prices
9750h six cores->9880h eight cores---+483 usd

That has nothing to do with being configurable. I don't know the recommended prices from Intel, but I imagine it's expensive. Even in the Core2Duo days, steps at the high end were three figures IIRC. The relationship between price and performance is certainly not linear. You have to decide for yourself whether it's worth it to you.

Tiny battery...

configurable devices is a very nice idea in general.
but not with this prices
9750h six cores->9880h eight cores---+483 usd