End of an era: Intel might move to outsourcing for chip manufacture

For years now, one of the things that has most clearly separated AMD and Intel was simply where their chips were physically made.

AMD, lagging behind Intel in almost every measurable way, sold off their chip foundries years ago to cut costs and raise capital, in a move which was largely considered indicative of their weak position at the time. Intel, by comparison, continued to own their own chip foundries, preserving a degree of vertical integration which was generally seen as a competitive strength.

But Intel has struggled to update their chip manufacture processes; their recent announcement that next year's Rocket Lake processor will, once again, be a 14nm chip, at a time when rival AMD is rumoured to be planning a move from 7nm to 5nm, speaks clearly to Intel's struggles in moving beyond 14nm chips to reach even 10nm, which would still be well behind the curve in terms of processor manufacturing.

If that last para made very little sense to you, here are the Coles notes: smaller is better when it comes to microprocessors, with smaller chip elements allowing chips to be smaller while having more capabilities, drawing less power, generating less heat, and running faster. This is the heart of Moore's Law, with the increasing areal density of transistors resulting in an exponential increase in computing power.

AMD's 7nm processors aren't just smaller; they're also better-designed, which is why their Zen 3 generation of Ryzen chips now outperforms Intel's products in every measurable way. But AMD didn't have to figure out the manufacturing process for Ryzen; TSMC had done that already, so AMD could just focus on design. Suddenly, what had seemed like a competitive disadvantage (i.e. AMD being forced to rely on a third party to bring the products to market) works to AMD's advantage.

So it probably shouldn't be a surprise that Intel, after spending the last several years being clobbered by AMD+TSMC, are finally flirting with outsourcing chip production themselves. As reported by The Oregonian:

Intel is laying the groundwork to toss the old model out the window. It is openly flirting with the notion of moving leading-edge production from Oregon to Asia and hiring one of its top rivals to make Intel’s most advanced chips.

The company says a decision is likely in January.

It’s a momentous choice that follows a string of manufacturing setbacks at the Ronler Acres campus near Hillsboro Stadium, failures that have cost Intel its cherished leadership in semiconductor technology – perhaps forever.

There's no guarantee that Intel will do this, of course; even if they do move forward, there's no guarantee that this change will save them (AMD's processors aren't just smaller, remember - they're also better-designed). But the simple fact that Intel are considering this move speaks to the weakness of their position; much like the AMD of years ago, Intel might just have no choice but to outsource, if they want to stay in business. Rocket Lake was their last, desperate attempt to steal some of AMD's Zen 3 thunder, and it totally failed; most tech media outlets didn't even notice the Rocket Lake announcement, or care, which is pretty much the prevailing sentiment where Intel are concerned, generally.

Intel are in serious trouble; they might not be on the verge of insolvency, but they are on the verge of irrelevancy, if they aren't already completely irrelevant to a PC industry that they were totally lording it over just two years ago. After years spent charging premium prices for tiny performance increases, moving to outsourcing now may just be too little, too late. 

Whatever the outcome, though, there's no doubt that a solid decade of Intel dominion over the PC is well and truly over. That era is at an end.

Users fix Windows 7 & 8.1 updates again, after Microsoft deliberately breaks them [UPDATED!]

In the absence of TRON, it seems the users can, and will, fight for themselves.

From BleepingComputer:

GitHub user Zeffy has created a patch that removes a limitation that Microsoft imposed on users of 7th generation processors, a limit that prevents users from receiving Windows updates if they still use Windows 7 and 8.1.

This limitation was delivered through Windows Update KB4012218 (March 2017 Patch Tuesday) and has made many owners of Intel Kaby Lake and AMD Bristol Ridge CPUs very angry last week, as they weren't able to install any Windows updates.

[...] When the April 2017 Patch Tuesday came around last week, GitHub user Zeffy finally had the chance to test four batch scripts he created in March, after the release of KB4012218.

His scripts worked as intended by patching Windows DLL files, skipping the CPU version check, and delivering updates to Windows 7 and 8.1 computers running 7th generation CPUs.

Huzzah! Now users of PCs with 7th generation processors can run whatever software they fucking well please on them, which is as it should be. Microsoft does not have the right to tell you how you'll use the PCs that you own, and the fact that they've now failed to do so gives me feelings of satisfaction.

My hat is off to you, Zeffy! Today, you are a hero.

UPDATE!

It looks like this development is starting to gain some more much-deserved attention, like this piece from ExtremeTech:

It should be hard for Microsoft to make any more mistakes with its Windows 10 push, but it keeps finding new ways. After nagging everyone incessantly about upgrading, updating computers without asking, and making Windows 10 patches mandatory, Microsoft has started disallowing Windows 7 and 8.1 updates on machines running the latest hardware. One developer has had enough, and is releasing a patch to help users get around this artificial blockade.

The unofficial patch from a developer calling him or herself ‘Zeffy’ on GitHub targets those running very new CPUs on older versions of Windows. Windows 7 and 8 are still supported with updates, but Microsoft has started blocking non-security updates for systems that run Intel 7th-Generation Kaby Lake processors, AMD “Bristol Ridge” Rizen chips, or the Qualcomm 8996 (Snapdragon 820 and 821) SoC.

[...] The Zeffy patch goes after a change Microsoft introduced in March that identifies the system’s CPU. As the changelog explained at the time, the patch “Enabled detection of processor generation and hardware support when PC tries to scan or download updates through Windows Update.” Zeffy is very clear on his dislike for Windows 10 when he calls this “essentially a giant middle finger to anyone who dare not ‘upgrade’ to the steaming pile of garbage known as Windows 10.”

Well said, Zeffy. Well said.

Windows 7 & 8 now blocking older AMD processors, too, not just Ryzen.

Are we really surprised?

From InfoWorld:

I reported earlier this morning that we're seeing "Unsupported hardware" and "Windows could not search for new updates" messages from people who are running Windows 7 and 8.1 on Intel Kaby Lake and AMD Rizen-based computers. It's part of Microsoft's long-threatened ban on Win7 and 8.1 updates for newer seventh-generation processors.

Now there's a report of similar blockages on an older AMD A6-8570 processor. It isn't clear if there's a bug in the detection logic, or if Microsoft's going to block Win7 and 8.1 updates on some older sixth-generation processors.

The report comes from poster The Heretic on [H]ardForum:

Well it isn't just the Ryzen that's going to get whacked. I came into work this AM to look at one of the system's I'd re-imaged with Win7 Pro and started downloading updates to it as I left yesterday. I was greeted with Microsoft's gotcha.

The screen he posts clearly says the block took place on an AMD Pro A6-8570 system.

[...]

AMD's product page for the AMD Pro A6-8570 clearly states that this is an older, sixth-generation chip.

I know that one should always hesitate to ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence, but when you consider just how much anti-consumer bullshit Microsoft has pulled in their efforts to force Windows 7 & 8 users to switch to Windows 10, I honestly think that we can just assume that this is deliberate on Microsoft's part. AMD really did a deal with the devil, when they agreed to let Microsoft lock their silicon to the products of Microsoft's choosing, and they should really be rethinking that decision, if they're not already.

Microsoft's coercion yields predictable response.

It looks like Microsoft's move to block Windows 7 and 8 users from running software they paid for, on the hardware of their choosing, is reaping a predictable harvest of bad PR.

First, Forbes:

Microsoft Admits Forcing More Users Onto Windows 10

Microsoft is blocking Windows 7 and 8 updates on Intel's seventh generation Core i3, i5 and i7 (Kaby Lake), AMD's Ryzen (Bristol Ridge) and Qualcomm's 8996 processors. Devices powered by these processors must update to Windows 10 in order to receive updates from Microsoft.

[...]

Responding to a request on the subject, a spokesperson said "As new silicon generations are introduced, they will require the latest Windows platform at that time for support. This enables us to focus on deep integration between Windows and the silicon while maintaining maximum reliability and compatibility with previous generations of platform and silicon".

[...]

However, there is something going on here I don't like. While it's certainly true that Microsoft will optimise Windows 10 continually, it doesn't need to pull support for Windows Updates on new processors. It is still, however it's spun, trying to get a greater number of people off Windows 7 and 8 and onto Windows 10. I understand the business objective, I'm just not fond of being held hostage over updates.

What's more, the wording is clear that this will be an ongoing thing. Of course Microsoft pledged that it would put an end big numeric updates to Windows. There will be, it says, no Windows 11. But instead users will be updated to new versions of what I expect will become simply "Windows" in the future. But what that does also mean is that if there are additional things added to Windows that you dislike, you won't have any option to use an old version of Windows instead. While there will be user benefits to this strategy, it also means that Microsoft is taking away a measure of control from users.

[...]

So I get where Microsoft is going with this. For many, Windows 10 will be their OS of choice anyway. But for others the whole thing will leave a new sour taste in their mouths. You can read the company's justification in detail on its Windows Experience blog.

So, it's not a bug: this is the intended result of changes that Microsoft is making to Windows 7 & 8. And Forbes is a big enough platform that others are picking this up and running with it, with Gizmodo, Express.co.uk, Financial Express, and Business Standard all reporting the story, and not positively.

Express.co.uk wins the most lurid headline award:

Windows 10 shock - users rage as Microsoft blocks THIS popular software

MICROSOFT criticised for stopping users running preferred software on new Windows PCs.

While Gizmodo offered perhaps the most practical take, with a possible workaround for Microsoft's latest BS:

It's not outside the realms of possibility that someone will cook up a workaround, if you want to persist with a pre-Windows 10 platform. If you can't wait, it should be possible to use a program such as WSUS to grab updates manually.

But it's coverage in the likes of Forbes, Financial Express, and Business Standard that could prove the most problematic for Microsoft, because those are publications that Microsoft's highly-sought-after Enterprise customers could be reading, and paying heed to. Microsoft are already having trouble convincing these customers to adopt Windows 10, and this latest bit of flat-out coercion is unlikely to help. Darth Microsoft altering the deal yet again isn't a good look, when you're trying to convince prospective customers to enter into a long-time deal with them.

Hats off to Microsoft! They started the week by winning some good PR for not-really fixing Windows 10 Updates, and ended it by proving Tim Sweeney right, actually breaking Windows 7 in order for force users to make the OS switch that they're clearly not intending to make, anytime soon. They started by looking like they actually were listening to their customers, and ended up looking rather cartoonishly villainous. Well done, Redmond! GG.

UPDATE:

Like a bad rash, the bad PR continues to spread, including this piece on Hot Hardware:

Microsoft Apparently Ramping Up Heavy-Handed Tactics To Force Windows 10 Migrations

The clock is ticking for users holding out on Windows 7 and 8. For starters, Microsoft is blocking Windows 7 and 8 updates for Intel's seventh generation Core i3, i5 and i7 (Kaby Lake), AMD's Ryzen (Bristol Ridge) and Qualcomm's 8996 processors. The low-level Vulkan API will also not be supporting multiple GPUs on Windows 7 or Windows 8.1 and users will need to update to Windows 10 in order to support SLI or CrossFire with Vulkan.

Microsoft’s main argument is that this lack of updates will help them to focus on the deep integration between Windows and new silicon generations. Windows 7 was designed nearly a decade ago before the introduction of x86/x64 SOCs. Windows 7 is unable to run on any modern silicon without device drivers and firmware emulating Windows 7’s expectations for interrupt processing, bus support, and power states. According to Microsoft, “redesigning Windows 7 subsystems to embrace new generations of silicon would introduce churn into the Windows 7 code base” and break the company's commitment to security and stability.

This is the first time I've seen anyone connect the Ryzen/Kaby Lake story with the Vulkan story, but it's an obvious connection. As I blogged before, once Microsoft start blocking updates depending on your installed hardware, there's nothing stopping them from doing it for any installed hardware. It would go a long way to explaining why the Kronos Group isn't enabling full functionality for Vulkan on Windows 7 & 8, too -- they may not be able to, if Microsoft is breaking the earlier OS in a bid to force migration to Windows 10.

Darth Microsoft alters the deal again

A while back, AMD and Intel made waves when they both annouced that their latest CPU chipsets (Zen and Kaby Lake, respectively) would only receive driver support for Windows 10. At the time, the speculation was that this "official" Win10 exclusivity wouldn't actually matter much, since both chipsets would probably run just fine on Windows 7 or 8.1, anway, and nobody was apparently willing to give much credence to the idea that AMD and Intel would just write off a huge chunk of their potential customer base by actively preventing users of older Windows versions from using their new chips.

People who were thinking that way, however, apparently didn't reckon with Microsoft, or with the amount of anti-consumer bullshit that Microsoft would be willing to build into its products. Because they're now actively blocking users of Windows 7 and 8.1 from using older versions of Windows on new Ryzen and Kaby Lake machines.

From PCGamesN:

It’s only frickin’ March. I find it hard to believe we haven’t even had three months of 2017 yet we’ve already seen entirely new CPU platforms from both AMD and Intel as well as a new ‘fastest graphics card ever.’ But as they announced over a year ago, Microsoft aren’t supporting the latest CPU platforms on their last-gen operating systems, suggesting anyone who wants to keep their PCs all nice and OCD updated should immediately upgrade to Windows 10.

Now that wouldn’t be a massive issue, as older operating systems were obviously not built with the intricacies of whole new chipset and CPU platforms in mind and it’s arguably more important for Microsoft to focus on ensuring good support for them with their most current OS.

All well and good. Except for the fact that reportedly AMD’s Ryzen chips seem to actually perform better on Windows 7 compared with Windows 10.

[...]

Yeah, that’s a mite awkward. But it’s okay ‘cos AMD says everything is fine, move along, nothing to see here. Windows 10 definitely isn’t having any scheduler issues with the Ryzen CCX architecture and any performance differences between the two operating systems “can be more likely attributed to software architecture differences between these OSes.”

Tom's Hardware gives more detail:

Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 users with new processors who try to scan or download updates via the Windows Update tool are greeted with one of two messages. The first is straightforward: "Unsupported Hardware [...] Your PC uses a processor that isn’t supported on this version of Windows and you won’t receive updates." The second message isn't quite as clear:

Windows could not search for new updatesAn error occurred while checking for new updates for your computer.Error(s) found:Code 80240037 Windows Update encountered an unknown error.

So the company published a support article to explain that the way its new support policy was implemented means that "Windows 8.1 and Windows 7 devices that have a seventh generation or a later generation processor may no longer be able to scan or download updates through Windows Update or Microsoft Update." The company (naturally) advised users affected by this problem to upgrade from their current operating system to Windows 10.

If you planned to upgrade to Kaby Lake, AMD's Ryzen, or another new processor, then you'll also finally have to move to Windows 10. This might have been implied by Microsoft's previous statements--it has repeatedly said that Windows 10 would be the only operating system to support the new processors--but now it's clear that some people didn't get the message (hence the support article) and that "will require the latest Windows platform at that time for support" really means "you won't even be able to search for updates if you buy a new CPU without moving to Windows 10."

At this point, I just want to emphasize that this new behaviour isn't being added to Windows 10. It's being added to Windows 7 and 8, products whose users bought and paid for the software, and who never agreed to only run the OS on hardware that was approved by Microsoft.

The deal was always simple -- you owned your PC, and could install any hardware in your PC that you liked, as long as you understood that your installed hardware might not all play nicely together, either with your other hardware or with Windows itself. Once again, however, Microsoft have altered the deal, and Windows 7 and 8 users can now only run hardware that Microsoft approves in advance.

Here's a thought: if they can do this with your CPU and motherboard, then what's stopping them from doing this with your GPU, too? Want a better graphics card? Better switch to Windows 10! Any kind of hardware that Windows 7/8 can detect, which is all of it, can now cause you to simply be blocked from future updates of your supposedly-supported-until-2020 operating system, purely by Microsoft's fiat.

That, my friends, is bullshit. It shouldn't be at all surprising, of course, at least to anyone who's been watching Microsoft's behaviour over the last couple of years, but it's still bullshit. That point should not be in question.

The only real question is, "Will it work?"

So far, benchmark comparisons between Intel's new Kaby Lake processors and their older Skylake ships have shown almost identical performance between the two. Some heavily hyper-threaded applications showed significant gains, so if you're a professional videographer or YouTuber who renders hours of video as a business, Kaby Lake might be worth your while, but for all other applications, including games, you may as well stick with the PC you're already using, unless it's older than SkyLake.

AMD's Ryzen benchmarks, by comparison, have been such a hot mess that AMD had to issue disclaimers, asserting that their chips ran just fine with Windows 10, really, and weren't running unusually hot, either, regardless of what your PC's onboard temperature sensors were saying. And while Ryzen benchmarks for some heavily-hyperthreaded applications looked great, most of the benchmarks that gamers and other PC power enthusiasts really care about showed no better performance than Intel's.

This is what the end of Moore's Law looks like. PC performance seems to have plateaued, with brand-new PCs quite simply not being much of an upgrade over chipsets that are years old.

If your PC is pre-dates the Obama administration, and you're needing to upgrade because everything runs terribly, and you're wanting to stay with Windows 7 or 8.1, then you have a tough choice to make. You can buy last-gen tech and get an inexpensive system that will work perfectly well for at least a few years, but which may need replacing again in a few years' time... or you can switch to Windows 10, which you've been avoiding for a number of excellent reasons, in order to get more future-proofing, and just hope and pray that Microsoft eventually pull their heads out of their collective asses. Good luck with that.

If, however, you bought a decently powerful PC relatively recently, then you're probably good. You can stick with what's working, rather than spending money on a new PC that you don't actually need, that won't perform much better than what you're already running, and that you'll have to switch to Windows 10 to use, even though everything about Microsoft's Windows 10 strategy turns you completely off.

"Will it work?" The answer depends on how many Windows 7 and 8.1 users are genuinely happy with their machines, and the extent to which they're determined to avoid Windows 10's bullshit. Given that (a) PC sales have been trending downwards for eight years, while Android has overtaken Windows as the most-used OS on Earth thanks to its utter dominance on mobile devices, and (b) Windows 7 users, in particular have shown no desire whatsoever to switch to Windows 10, I somehow doubt that this will drive Windows 10 adoption. It could, and probably will, hurt sales of Ryzen and Kaby Lake, which makes AMD's and Intel's collusion in this scheme all the more baffling, but I don't see this actually benefitting Microsoft much at all.

So, will it work? I don't think so. In fact, I'm going to stand behind my earlier prediction, and say that Windows 10's market share will continue to tick backwards next month, both in general and among Steam users, while sales of new PCs continue to decline as Microsoft's latest anti-consumer step further depresses demand for new silicon.

Place your bets!

Nothing to see here, says AMD

I guess Microsoft and AMD have kissed and made up, because AMD is letting them off the hook for the problems that Ryzen has with Windows 10.

From TechSpot:

AMD has put an official end to the debate surrounding Windows 10's thread scheduler and Ryzen's lower-than-expected 1080p gaming performance. In an official statement posted on the AMD gaming blog, the company says "the Windows® 10 thread scheduler is operating properly for “Zen.”"

The statement continues to say AMD "do not presently believe there is an issue with the scheduler adversely utilizing the logical and physical configurations of the architecture."

As for reported performance deltas between Windows 10 and Windows 7, AMD says that they "do not believe there is an issue with scheduling differences between the two versions of Windows", and that any performance differences are simply attributed to the software architecture differences between 7 and 10.

Problems? What problems?

AMD went on to say that their new SMT technology should have a neutral or positive impact on performance (never mind all those benchmarks to the contrary), and finishes by saying that "some game optimizations for Ryzen may be possible." So, there are no problems, therefore any problems you're seering are strictly your imagination, and they'll be helping patch the non-existent performance problems on a game-by-game basis.... eventually.

Why is this AMD's best option, exactly? Ryzen benchmarks really are something of a hot mess right now, and this latest statement from AMD is basically an admission that their new hotness CPU just doesn't run as well as they were claiming prior to its launch. That's right in line with the Intel's comparative benchmarks, which show only modest gains for Kaby Lake over SkyLake, but considering how much AMD have sunk into development the new Zen architecture, if it's not going to be able to outperform Intel's Kaby Lake, that might spell serious trouble for AMD.

AMD does mention, almost in passing, that Ryzen performs equally well on both Windows 7 and Windows 10, but considering their previous, full-throated endorsement of Windows 10 as the only platform that will see full driver support for Ryzen and all other future AMD products, I don't think that's going to be enough to pull in the Windows 7 die-hards that they're losing by not outright committing to supporting Windows 7 until at least 2020. If this was meant to be some sort of dog-whistle appeal to Windows 7 AMD enthusiasts, I think it's much to quiet for any of those old dogs to really hear, and pitched outside the range of their hearing, anyway.

AMD's previous CPUs were at a significant performance disadvantage compared to Intel's i5, so the fact that Ryzen is on par with i7 is still a significant performance improvement over older AMD processors. AMD's bang-for-buck proposition hasn't changed, either, which has already prompted Intel to cut prices significantly on their line -- competition is generally good for consumers, and anyone buying a new PC can now basically pick the affordably-priced, high-powered CPU of their choice. But PC sales are still down, and neither new CPU is showing enough of a performance boost in independent testing to justify the expense of a new system. So, how does AMD benefit from taking the hit for this?

"Our new CPU really just isn't that great" certainly doesn't help sell Ryzen, and since i7/Kaby Lake isn't really a big step up from i5/Skylake, either, it doesn't look like either new CPU line is likely to boost PC sales anytime soon... which means there's nothing driving new Windows 10 installations for Microsoft, either. I guess Microsoft get the driver issue to stop being comment-worthy, but that doesn't seem like much of a benefit. Who wins here?

AMD's new Ryzen CPU only supports Windows 10, is negatively affected by Windows 10.

This is why you don't want to tie your brand-new, best-in-class CPU to Microsoft's bug factory.

From Wccftech:

A newly discovered bug in Windows 10’s scheduler has been found to be negatively affecting performance of AMD Ryzen CPUs. The bug has been confirmed to affect all Windows 10 versions but not Windows 7. It’s not clear yet if Windows 8.1 is affected.

Ryzen processors are AMD’s first ever to feature simulatenous multi-threading technology. [...] Intel’s hyper-threading technology works in a very similar fashion. [...] In best case scenarios SMT provides about 20-30% of additional throughput give or take in both Intel’s latest Skylake microarchitecture and AMD’s Zen microarchitecture.

Windows 10′s scheduler correctly identifies Intel’s hyper-threads as lesser performing than principal core threads and schedules tasks in a way that’s takes advantage of the additional throughput without negatively impacting performance. Unfortunately the scheduler currently is not able to differentiate principal core threads from virtual SMT threads with Ryzen and in fact sees 16 thread Ryzen 7 processors as processors with 16 physical cores with equal resources per thread.

Because it does not give any preferential prioritization of scheduling tasks to primary threads over SMT threads like it does on Intel platforms, a massively larger percentage of tasks can and do end up getting scheduled for a virtual SMT thread rather than a principal core thread. Resulting in significant artificial performance degradation.

First things first, we’ve been informed that AMD has become aware of the issue. I’m sure they must’ve had some stern words for Microsoft over this mishap. The company has been pushing hardware manufacturers to adopt its brand newest OS for years. So it must’ve left a bitter taste in AMD’s mouth after embracing Microsoft’s Windows 10 push for it to be rewarded with poor hardware support. With that being said, it’s safe to assume the pair are actively working together to get this issue resolved.

Again, this is a bug that only affects Ryzen PCs running Windows 10... which is all of them, because AMD is only supporting Ryzen for Windows 10. I wonder if they're re-thinking that wisdom of that decision, yet? Especially since Ryzen benchmark scores were puzzlingly low, something that AMD were having trouble explaining. Well, here's the explanation: Microsoft royally fucked them over, and AMD should be planning legal action. At the very least, AMD should be looking to get out of that Windows 10 exclusivity side-deal, now that Microsoft's incompetence has resulted in wave of coverage like "Gaming benchmarks on Ryzen are a critical mess," and "Gaming isn't a strong point for AMD's fledgling architecture."

GG, Microsoft. GG.

Is this LTSB carve-out by Microsoft meant to boost sales of CPUs?

A few months ago, the news broke that AMD's and Intel's new chips (Ryzen and Kaby Lake, respectively) would only officially support Windows 10. The move was clearly the product of some sort of side-dealing with Microsoft; with Windows 7 still nearly twice as popular as Microsoft's newest OS, limiting support in this way effectively undercuts sales of newer-model CPUs, something which wouldn't be in AMD's or Intel's interests at all unless Microsoft had made some other concession elsewhere.

Well, we may have just found out what that concession was.

From Gregg Keizer at Computerworld:

Microsoft has largely invalidated one of Windows 10's signature concessions to corporate customers, said Gartner analysts who recommended that enterprises reconsider running the operating system's most stable and static edition.

"Microsoft has clarified support plans for LTSB, highlighting restrictions and caveats that could make this an unviable strategy," wrote Stephen Kleynhans and Michael Silver in a Gartner research note to clients earlier this month.

[...]

The most far-reaching change was quietly revealed as the 22nd item in a long FAQ on Windows support. "Windows 10 Long Term Servicing Branches, also known as LTSBs, will support the currently released silicon at the time of release of the LTSB," the new policy stated [emphasis added]. "As future silicon generations are released, support will be created through future Windows 10 LTSB releases that customers can deploy for those systems."

The tying of support to the latest silicon -- to the current generation of processors and associated chipsets from the likes of Intel and AMD -- was broadly communicated by Microsoft in January 2016, and revised in March. However, most of the attention paid to the unprecedented change was about how it affected those running Windows 7 or Windows 8.1 on newer PCs. Even though Microsoft also said at the time that "all future silicon releases will require the latest release of Windows 10," there was no clear call-out that the same rule applied to LTSB.

But it did, and does. And there's the rub.

To me, this stinks of quid pro quo. Microsoft clearly wanted AMD and Intel to limit support for new CPUs to Windows 10, thus pushing the market in a Win10 direction to which it clearly wasn't inclined to move naturally; AMD and Intel clearly wanted to be compensated for passing on 48% of the PC market by doing so. And thus, we have this change to the Long-Term Service Branch of Windows, which only existed in the first place "because of corporate customer resistance to the accelerated tempo of added features, changed code and altered UI in Windows 10."

The other effect of this side-deal between AMD, Intel, and Microsoft, is to undercut the appeal of Windows 10 to Enterprise customers. The allure of LTSB was that Enterprise customers' IT departments wouldn't have to spent nearly as much time dealing with upgrades as Microsoft phased out earlier Windows 10 versions in favour of newer ones. That's not the case, anymore:

"Many I&O [Infrastructure & Operations] leaders expected to pick a single LTSB release that they would deploy and run for up to 10 years on all their organizations' PCs, old and new," Kleynhans and Silver said in their report.

"With Microsoft's latest guidance on LTSB, this is not possible."The problem, they explained, is that in the face of essentially annual silicon upgrades by Intel, enterprises would have to ditch the idea of sticking with a single LTSB build for, say, five years. Instead, they could be required to adopt virtually every LTSB version as they buy new PCs powered by new generations of silicon.

It seems to me that this carve-out side-deal undercuts both Windows 10 Enterprise adoption, and the sales of new PCs. Why switch to Windows 10 now when it means more upgrading going forward; why not just stay with what you're already using for another couple of years? Also, why buy new PCs, if your existing software won't be fully supported on them; why not just stick with the hardware you're already using, which is probably still perfectly fine?

Coming at a time when new PC sales have been in decline for years, making new PCs look even less attractive because of the extra Win10 IT support costs that will come with them seems counter-intuitive, to put it mildly. For organizations that use a large number of PCs of varying ages, the fact that Windows 10 now requires frequent hardware and software updates (because otherwise you'll have multiple different Windows 10 versions running on the same corporate network) would seem to create something of a barrier to entry.

If this was the price for AMD and Intel to preferentially support Windows 10 over the (much more popular) Windows 7, as I suspect, then it looks to have been both short-sighted and self-defeating, meaning fewer sales of new PCs and slower adoption of Windows 10. It's as if some MS executive had "get AMD & Intel on-board" as one of their key results, and didn't really care what the consequences were of doing the deal that made it happen.

I suppose it isn't particularly surprising that Microsoft appears to have basically bribed both AMD and Intel into tying all of their new product releases to one specific version of Windows. I'm just surprised that AMD and Intel sold out so cheaply; it seems like they're giving up far more than they're getting back.

This is what the end of Moore's Law looks like

From Mark Walton at arstechnica:

Intel Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake review: Is the desktop CPU dead?

With identical performance to Skylake, Intel brings desktop performance to a standstill.

The Intel Core i7-7700K is what happens when a chip company stops trying. The i7-7700K is the first desktop Intel chip in brave new post-"tick-tock" world—which means that instead of major improvements to architecture, process, and instructions per clock (IPC), we get slightly higher clock speeds and a way to decode DRM-laden 4K streaming video. Huzzah.

For the average consumer building or buying a new performance-focused PC, a desktop chip based on 14nm Kaby Lake remains the chip of choice—a total lack of competition at this level makes sure of that.

But for the enthusiast—where the latest and greatest should perform better than what came before—Kaby Lake desktop chips are a disappointment, a stopgap solution that does little more than give OEMs something new to stick on a label in a 2017 product stack.

Walton's article goes into more detail, of course, and is worth a read if you're looking to replace your current PC for some reason, but the big takeaway is something that I've been saying for a while now: if your current PC is still working, then there's no rush to replace it, because even the next generation of CPUs (and GPUs, for that matter) offer very little in the way of a performance boost. AMD's Zen/Ryzen chips are still coming, of course, but are unlikely to offer much more than parity with Kaby Lake.

Intel, in particular, has been talking a big game about vertical processor design, but nobody knows what that means yet, and nobody's working on building actual-3D chips, even in the lab, let alone something that will scale up for mass production; right now, 3-D chips are just stacks of 2-D chips, which adds processor cores but doesn't do much for your processing power... especially since the software probably isn't even utilizing all the cores you have on your PC already.

This is something that PC gamers, in particular, may take a while to figure out, something which is helping boost Windows 10's share of Steam users (gamers are the only ones still buying new PCs out of habit, rather than necessity), but the simple truth is that the gaming PC you bought a few years ago will probably do you for a few years yet, unless you're looking to get into streaming in a big way, or VR. The days of needing to buy a new PC every couple of years just to stay in the game... they're well and truly done.

Incidentally, this probably bodes well for Nintendo Switch, which is using last-generation Intel chips. While Switch will still be significantly less powerful than either PS4 or XBOne, let alone a PC, it's not going to be significantly less powerful than it could have been, had Nintendo used the newer Pascal chips, and it won't fall farther behind any time soon, either.