7 ms·

Unsurprisingly IBM pioneered this with "Capacity on Demand" https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/power9?topic=environment-capacity-demand https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/pow

by ople 4y ago

Unsurprisingly IBM pioneered this with "Capacity on Demand" https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/power9?topic=environment-capacity-demand https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/power9?topic=environment-capacit... I'm guessing it has had some popularity among customers as it has been around at least for a decade.

lobochrome 4y ago
It has been around far longer since this was one of the main ingredients of mainframe contracts (Variable Workload License Charges) CoD was just the expansion to Power-based systems.
- rbanffy 4y ago
  Indeed it feels like that - Intel makes only one part, sells it at one price and, if you want to enable the dark silicon, you pay Intel for a key and the feature is enabled. It's better than what they used to do, when they killed parts of the CPU to match the SKUs they needed to sell. At least you can pay Intel to enable things.
  - bayindirh 4y ago
    I'm pretty excited to buy an entry level server for the price of a high end one, and pay the difference again to get the high end server I paid for. This is the future I was waiting for.
    - rbanffy 4y ago
      > to buy an entry level server for the price of a high end one You pay base price for a mid-range server. You pay the difference to enable the accelerators, if you need them. What is the problem with that?
      - bayindirh 4y ago
        > What is the problem with that? Because, I guess, Intel will charge a premium for these SKUs anyway, because they have unlockable features inside. So, you'll pay twice for the privilege.
        rbanffy 4y ago
        Price elasticity will play a role here, but, all things equal, you'll get a slightly better part than the one you'd get with the units permanently disabled.
  - cesarb 4y ago
    > when they killed parts of the CPU to match the SKUs they needed to sell Or that part of the CPU was dead to begin with; every wafer of silicon has some defects, but if these defects hit a part of the chip they can disable, they can avoid wasting a whole chip. Of course, if there's high enough demand for the SKU without that part, and low enough demand for the SKU with that part working, they might kill that part even when it's defect-free. (Of course, if the part can be enabled "on demand", it means that the disabled part must be working, so they cannot be reusing partially defective chips; it smells like a cash grab.)
    - rbanffy 4y ago
      OTOH, if all I need is a powerful CPU and I have no use for any of the accelerators right now, I can pay a lower price than I would be able to, without Intel needing to make a different part for me. For Intel, it also helps to fine tune the product lineup by getting more detailed usage information.
- Tuna-Fish 4y ago
  Even before that. The System/360 machines were typically leased, not sold. And the leases had different tiers for different clock speeds. If you decided you needed more power, you'd call up IBM, accept a more expensive contract, their service rep would show up, unlock a padlock on the machine, open a panel, turn a knob, close and lock the machine again, and leave.

by ople 4y ago

lobochrome 4y ago

It has been around far longer since this was one of the main ingredients of mainframe contracts (Variable Workload License Charges) CoD was just the expansion to Power-based systems.

rbanffy 4y ago
Indeed it feels like that - Intel makes only one part, sells it at one price and, if you want to enable the dark silicon, you pay Intel for a key and the feature is enabled. It's better than what they used to do, when they killed parts of the CPU to match the SKUs they needed to sell. At least you can pay Intel to enable things.
- bayindirh 4y ago
  I'm pretty excited to buy an entry level server for the price of a high end one, and pay the difference again to get the high end server I paid for. This is the future I was waiting for.
  - rbanffy 4y ago
    > to buy an entry level server for the price of a high end one You pay base price for a mid-range server. You pay the difference to enable the accelerators, if you need them. What is the problem with that?
    - bayindirh 4y ago
      > What is the problem with that? Because, I guess, Intel will charge a premium for these SKUs anyway, because they have unlockable features inside. So, you'll pay twice for the privilege.
      - rbanffy 4y ago
        Price elasticity will play a role here, but, all things equal, you'll get a slightly better part than the one you'd get with the units permanently disabled.
- cesarb 4y ago
  > when they killed parts of the CPU to match the SKUs they needed to sell Or that part of the CPU was dead to begin with; every wafer of silicon has some defects, but if these defects hit a part of the chip they can disable, they can avoid wasting a whole chip. Of course, if there's high enough demand for the SKU without that part, and low enough demand for the SKU with that part working, they might kill that part even when it's defect-free. (Of course, if the part can be enabled "on demand", it means that the disabled part must be working, so they cannot be reusing partially defective chips; it smells like a cash grab.)
  - rbanffy 4y ago
    OTOH, if all I need is a powerful CPU and I have no use for any of the accelerators right now, I can pay a lower price than I would be able to, without Intel needing to make a different part for me. For Intel, it also helps to fine tune the product lineup by getting more detailed usage information.
Tuna-Fish 4y ago
Even before that. The System/360 machines were typically leased, not sold. And the leases had different tiers for different clock speeds. If you decided you needed more power, you'd call up IBM, accept a more expensive contract, their service rep would show up, unlock a padlock on the machine, open a panel, turn a knob, close and lock the machine again, and leave.