Is there a logical, engineering based reason to manufacture a

>>58385607
ARM claims it leads to worse power efficiency

>Is this difference deliberate sabotage contrived by intel to sell K chips at a higher premium?
Yes, locked frequency multiplier

>>58385607
>Is there a logical, engineering based reason to manufacture a chip in this day and age that cannot do hyperthreading?
The added complexity of the additional task schedulers. Everything is built as a Xeon E3 / Core i7. Some have faulty cores, and get binned as i3's, some fail hyper-thread tests, and get binned as i5's.

Sometimes they're disabled just because the market calls for a given CPU.

>Also what, at a fundamental engineering level, enables K series chips to overclock where non-K chips cannot?
At one point yes. I can't recall if it was i7 2600 or i7 4600, but VT-d (Virtualization Technology for directed io) was disabled on the K series CPU's.

Doesn't really matter for a desktop, but for a workstation doing virtualization stuff, it does.

>>58385621
>ARM claims it leads to worse power efficiency

But you can disable hyperthreading on an i7 anyway. Is there any legitimate reason why Intel can't manufacture i7s for the same cost as a similarly binned i5?

>>58385664
The i5s aren't same cost. They are lower clocked by standard and have no HT so they can be worse chips within the same thermal envelope.

Not all chips reach the same clocks at the same voltage/power consumption, so if you get a chip that is particularly shit at reaching thermal target you can disable HT and lower clock to do it. Boom you have an i5

>>58385607
All chips are i7s with shit disabled or defect, didnt you know?

>>58385607
I herd somewhere the K chips are hand selected to be guaranteed to sustain OC. So the non-K chips are likely to be worse grade material or some bullshit.

Theyre all fucking jews anyway, CPU's cost like a dollar to manufacture. The assembly machines pump em out like hotcakes. Sold at %200,000 markup because you cant make your own. Fucking jews, the lot of them.

>>58385607
>Is this difference deliberate sabotage contrived by intel to sell K chips at a higher premium?
Yes

File: 7th Gen Intel Core die with label.jpg (1MB, 1405x1664px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1405x1664px

>>58385607
>Is there a logical, engineering based reason to manufacture a chip in this day and age that cannot do hyperthreading?
SMT requires more logic and hence more transistors, that means a larger die and a higher cost. So yes it does cost more, but not by a huge amount. We're not talking adding more cores level of of additional transistors.

Why does Intel sell i7s with HT for so much more that i5s without it, even though the cost is relatively minor? Because people are happy to pay more.

>>58386758
Not all. Intel does manufacture dual core dies (pic related). So some CPUs are actually i3s with shit disabled.

File: autism.png (194KB, 1011x801px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1011x801px

>>58386805
> being this autistic to be manipulated by pol

http://gizmodo.com/5318104/how-modern-processors-are-made/

>it doesn't matter if matter it requires insane amount of machinery and people to create the product! if the costs of the materials are low, then the price is low as well!

That's like calling a blacksmith with a one-of-a-kind forge to make you a sword but you expect him to only charge you for the iron and wood. So pretty much, to you it doesn't matter how much it would cost to run the machines or maintain them and the people with the skill it takes to operate them? Or do you just call people who create expensive products Jews?

I'd expect you to reply with something more well-thought out, but I'm sure you're just going to reply with a jew/shekel/goy image or a t. jew, retard.

more shekels from goyims

>>58388232
t. intel employee/jew

>>58385607
>Is this difference deliberate sabotage contrived by intel to sell K chips at a higher premium?

Yes.
Back in the day you used to be able to buy a cheap low end CPU and turn it into a flagship with some knowledge about how to overclock. Putting a price premium on that has largely negated the benefit overclocking used to give you.

>>58385607
It is simple.

You just make i7 chips because it's much cheaper to do so, It is significantly cheaper to set up just one manufacturing line for one product as wel;l as cheaper R&D to develop just one chip.

Then you simplyt lock it down and sell cheaper to fill every niche on the market includng hi-end and low-end.

>>58388232
>That's like calling a blacksmith with a one-of-a-kind forge to make you a sword but you expect him to only charge you for the iron and wood.

No.

Assuming the iron and the wood cost 1$ and he is going to make 1000000000000 swords then he's making a bank charging me 1.1$

This is how mass production works.