For years now, I do not buy/create assemble a new computer, because I am totally overwhelmed by the options available to me.
If we agree there is 'The Paradox of Choice', it seems to make sense to have a much more limited choice between CPU models from a consumer point of view. For example, have for each year an entry, business and a pro model, add extreme for gamer and have each of these models have a version with a beefy integrated CPU.
But it seems also a good idea for the manufacturers: They have to design, test and build each of their models, create advertisement etc., like configuring their assembly lines alone costs money. Further, compilers have to generate code for a specific architecture, which means that all my software I didn't compile myself ends up using an instruction set of the lowest common CPU, not utilizing whatever I bought fully.
Apple (not a fan ;-)) shows IMHO how it is done with their Apple Silicon: Basically even I understand which CPU choice would be the right one for me. The Steam Deck is IMHO another success story: As reference hardware I know easily if I can play a game, and it is easy to know if my hardware is faster than a Steam Deck. Compare that to games with hardware requirements like 'AMD TI 5800 8GB RAM' (made up model) which makes my life miserable.
What I am looking for is fact based knowledge:
- Why does it make (commercial) sense for AMD/Intel to create so many models?
- What are their incentives?
- What would happen, if they would reduce the amount of different CPUs they offer? (Is there historical knowledge?)
Because there is demand for various types of systems. And on top of that, if you make a chip with 8 cores and two are defective… just sell a 6 core chip instead of throwing it away.
Money
They would lose customers to competitors in that space. When AMD didn’t make EPYC chips, all servers were Intel Xeon.