# Intel Wants $50 for Software Unlock of CPU Features



## btarunr (Sep 20, 2010)

The Pentium G6951 dual-core LGA1156 processor may not have made any headlines when it was known to be almost identical to the Pentium G6950, until now. Intel designed the G6951 to support "hardware feature upgrades" by purchasing them and enabling them using a software, so users with this processor installed can upgrade their systems by enabling that are otherwise locked for the SKU. The $50 upgrade fetches support for HyperThreading Technology, enabling four threads on the processor; and unlocks the disabled 1 MB of the L3 cache (Clarkdale has 4 MB of L3 cache, of which 1 MB is disabled on the Pentium SKUs). 

There isn't much value in buying a $99 Pentium G6951 and the $50 Upgrade Card upfront, but later down the line, companies can opt to mass-upgrade system performance without touching any of the hardware inside. The service works by the purchase of an upgrade key that the user has to feed into the software, which is then verified by Intel's activation server, following successful verification, the software unlocks the processor's features. This is a one-time process, portable between software reinstallations.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## btarunr (Sep 20, 2010)

Many Thanks to DanishDevil for the tip, in a parallel universe.


----------



## OnBoard (Sep 20, 2010)

$50 for unlocked multiplier would be more fun  Would be no need to release those "K" processors, enthusiasts would just do this for their current CPU.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 20, 2010)

How long before it's cracked?


----------



## mdsx1950 (Sep 20, 2010)

Wile E said:


> How long before it's cracked?



Won't be long.


----------



## animal007uk (Sep 20, 2010)

Stupid idea i for one wont be buying this CPU. $50 for an unlock of something is a bloody rip of if its already built into the cpu. Hope someone cracks it soon lol.


----------



## arroyo (Sep 20, 2010)

I don't think this is stupid idea. Graphics cards use this all the time (Radeon 9500@9500 pro, Geforce 6800LE@6800GT, Radeon X800, .....).

It's like in applications. Most of applications have their full function build in. You buy registration code for unlocking all functionality. 
If you would not pay, you would get trial or demo version.
If you pay less you would get full version. 
If you pay more you would get ultimate version.

Maybe there is more potential in Intel CPU's. Like in AMD all Intel CPU's may be 6 core, just waiting to unlock. That would be COOL!


----------



## RejZoR (Sep 20, 2010)

arroyo, it's not the same. Those graphic cards were degraded on purpose because texture units or shaders were not working properly or were damaged during manufacturing process.
Some of course worked, with others you got the nice chess pattern... there was no guarantee.
In Intel's case, every and each such CPU has to unlock perfectly. And Intel has to guarnate that to the customer, while no one had to do that with possibly unlockable graphic cards.


----------



## caleb (Sep 20, 2010)

This is a good solution for intel so they can make a single CPU just lock out the potential but what it means for us ? Well soon you'll have to logon to INTEL to BOOT


----------



## arroyo (Sep 20, 2010)

RejZor you have right, but look at this case like that:

You are developing something that cost 150$. People with 150$ dollars in the pocket would buy it, but people with 100$ would't. They will buy cheaper model. If they get 50$ they would be glad to upgrade their stuff.

It would be nice to know that your CPU has unlockable potential. I would be so happy to know, that for 50$ my Q9550 could have turbo technology or 2 more cores. It's just about creating right products for low budget by locking features of better products. Everyone does it. Even on cars. I bought Seat Ibiza (2000 year model) with 75 horses. The only difference between my model and 100 HP model is firmware !!! If I had some cash I would go to Seat dealer and buy that 25 horses for my ride.


----------



## Octopuss (Sep 20, 2010)

I don't see the point. so Intel would produce identical CPUs, but sell some of them intentionally degraded, losing money? Huh?


----------



## arroyo (Sep 20, 2010)

NO. Lot losing money. They making products for different price ranges.


----------



## Wiselnvestor (Sep 20, 2010)

arroyo said:


> I don't think this is stupid idea. Graphics cards use this all the time (Radeon 9500@9500 pro, Geforce 6800LE@6800GT, Radeon X800, .....).
> 
> It's like in applications. Most of applications have their full function build in. You buy registration code for unlocking all functionality.
> If you would not pay, you would get trial or demo version.
> ...



Ummmm.... You're paying 50$ extra to turn a 100$ CPU into a 120$ CPU...

Still think this is a good idea?


----------



## Wile E (Sep 20, 2010)

Wiselnvestor said:


> Ummmm.... You're paying 50$ extra to turn a 100$ CPU into a 120$ CPU...
> 
> Still think this is a good idea?



Yep, especially when the crack comes out and you get it for free.


----------



## mdsx1950 (Sep 20, 2010)

Wile E said:


> Yep, especially when the crack comes out and you get it for free.



Well said!


----------



## pantherx12 (Sep 20, 2010)

What a waste of resources, putting out disabled yet fully working chips is just rubbish to be honest.

You pay for hardware you should have access to the hardware.


----------



## laszlo (Sep 20, 2010)

good idea only if can't be cracked but 2 expensive


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Sep 20, 2010)

I predict college kids with thumb drives "upgrading" laptops for a charge with a cracking program.


----------



## Frick (Sep 20, 2010)

pantherx12 said:


> What a waste of resources, putting out disabled yet fully working chips is just rubbish to be honest.
> 
> You pay for hardware you should have access to the hardware.



OEM's been doing this for years in motherboards and so on. I can see why they're doing it, but I for one would not buy it.


----------



## Nick89 (Sep 20, 2010)

will be easily hacked.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 20, 2010)

This idea of Intel's is going to flop harder than a dying whale.  If the CPU die is good enough to run those specs from day one, why isn't it?


----------



## RejZoR (Sep 20, 2010)

arroyo said:


> RejZor you have right, but look at this case like that:
> 
> You are developing something that cost 150$. People with 150$ dollars in the pocket would buy it, but people with 100$ would't. They will buy cheaper model. If they get 50$ they would be glad to upgrade their stuff.
> 
> It would be nice to know that your CPU has unlockable potential. I would be so happy to know, that for 50$ my Q9550 could have turbo technology or 2 more cores. It's just about creating right products for low budget by locking features of better products. Everyone does it. Even on cars. I bought Seat Ibiza (2000 year model) with 75 horses. The only difference between my model and 100 HP model is firmware !!! If I had some cash I would go to Seat dealer and buy that 25 horses for my ride.



That's why stores offer delayed payment in monthly payments. Or credit cards. If you can't afford it now, you pay it in several parts or delay the payment with a credit card.

As for the car, the analogy is not exactly right. We are comparing between 2 products, where one costs $120 and another $12.000... Plus, you can't buy those extra 25 HP even if there is only difference in ECU software. Official dealers just don't do that. Tuner shop can hack it for you, but you'll lose warranty if the car still has it (if we're talking about new cars).


----------



## Hayder_Master (Sep 20, 2010)

Wile E said:


> How long before it's cracked?



we going say to them, thanx for tips to let us now this cpu can be hacked


----------



## Munki (Sep 20, 2010)

ugh. yay Intel, lets make something else that is gonna go downhill quick, fast, and innna hurry. In less than a year after the software is hacked, they will be loosing money, because at $50 a CPU, and how many people use cracked software? yeahh..... they are gonna be wishin' they just didn't try this mess anyway. I mean seriously? Guess that's just my two cents.


----------



## qubit (Sep 20, 2010)

This doesn't feel right to me and I wouldn't be keen to buy such a CPU. As Wiselnvestor said, would you like to pay $50 for a $20 upgrade. I reckon it's going to be one big ripp-off.

And it's likely to be hacked in no time, as Wile E said also. What then? Will the long arm of Intel then reach into your CPU over the internet and switch it off? Kinda Big Brother to me...

No thanks. :shadedshu


----------



## Kreij (Sep 20, 2010)

As Arroyo said, the GC vendors have been disabling portions of their GPUs for years.
Why the hate on Intel but not them?


----------



## qubit (Sep 20, 2010)

Kreij said:


> As Arroyo said, the GC vendors have been disabling portions of their GPUs for years.
> Why the hate on Intel but not them?



Because they simply disabled chips where parts of it were allegedly unuseable and didn't try to cash in on "unlocking" them.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 20, 2010)

Because the GPU vendors don't release software that reenable those disabled portions because the GPU is instable if they do.  Intel is releasing a product that is *known* to be capable of doing more but they decide not to just for monetary reasons.  I've never heard of any company doing that before.

The equivilent would be like AMD and NVIDIA realasing GPUs with a second memory controller and double the RAM on the card but that memory controller (and thusly, the extra RAM wired to it) is disabled unless you pony up to enable it.  Or AMD and NVIDIA releasing GPUs with the full count of functioning shader units but having disabled half of them unless you pay again to enable them.

AMD/NVIDIA GPUs out now have portions disabled, yes, but they do that because there is a quality assurance problem with the chips--they don't perform well enough to sell in a fully functional state.  Intel/AMD also do the same thing for CPUs with your multiple clockspeeds and locked/unlocked multipliers.

What is unique about this is Intel knows those processors are perfectly good but decides consumers can't have access to it unless they they pay more later.  This same tactic could be applied to use of the integrated GPU, memory controller functionality, cores, L3 cache, etc.  I just hope it doesn't catch on or it will never end.  You'll end up paying $100 up front for a processor and in order to get full functionality out of it, you'd have to pony up another $500 later.


----------



## arroyo (Sep 20, 2010)

I think it's a good news for us. 

Many of people (70% or more) would never unlock their CPU. Some would buy patch for 50$ (maybe 20% of people) and only 10% (but all from TPU community) would patch their CPU on their own. I see how many of my friends has fully unlockable Phenom X2@X4 but they didn't try to use it's full power. They afraid to break them. If AMD would release patch to install and unlock disabled cores, they would try it. BIOS is just too much complicated for some people.

Think of this "hidden" feature as totally lamer: 
- This is called disabled feature.
- Ammmm....... What?
- And that's how you unlock Hyperthreading.
- This is completely and totally awesome!


----------



## OnionMan (Sep 20, 2010)

I don't see this as lasting very long.. Intel is most likely just dipping its toe into the water on this idea..

I see another side to it.. 

If you buy a $100 cpu and wait 6-8 months to unlock it, by that time it's unlocked value has dropped because of newer faster product offered at nearly the same price.. It's like waiting until the price of a gfx card drop, only to have a newer better card available for nearly the same price.. 

I like idea of upgrading with out hardware being changed, but I think this would be a waste of money for me..


----------



## qubit (Sep 20, 2010)

@Kreij

I've come across this Register article that I think explains very well what's wrong with this idea. It finishes with:



> Intel's move is likely to cause discontent among those who see it as intentional crippling of hardware that the user has already paid for. However for Intel and some of its OEM partners this offers them another way to make more money by doing absolutely nothing.



The Register


----------



## Tatty_One (Sep 20, 2010)

Is this not about choice?  Already it has been suggested that this is more for the business market, in effect you have a choice of 2 CPU's, one costing more with more features, you opt for the cheaper one because you cannot afford the more expensive one, but one day you might afford it, just like you adding a 2nd GPU to add performance down the line to your graphics set up because you could'nt afford the higher priced single card solution that you would have preferred from the off.

I agree that it may be frustrating to some to think that it is a "crippled" CPU from the start but at the end of the day it just depends which way you are looking at it..... whats the difference between an i7 930 and an i7 950? higher stock clocks... why?  because you get a higher multi with the 950.... are the chips fundementally the same? .... probably yes.

I don't like the way things are going here, just perhaps that I could'nt care less


----------



## arroyo (Sep 20, 2010)

I don't know why are you so frustrated about it. If you want almost i7 950 performance for half of it's price, you buy i7 930. It's normal!


----------



## KainXS (Sep 20, 2010)

difference is how they're binned more than likely, buy an upgrade card, . . . . . . why isn't it working because the cpu can't handle it cause its binned too low, 

think intel will give you back your money

for people that don't know much about computers its probably not a bad idea because they don't know any better, for people like us its a rip off though, cause we overclock, people using amd have been able to do this for free for how long, there may be risk but its still free.

power to the crackers,


----------



## qubit (Sep 20, 2010)

Just thought of another angle how they can be ripping us off with this:

Normally, the price of components drops with time. However, the price of the "upgrade" is likely not to, or not as much, effectively price gouging the hapless buyer.


----------



## pantherx12 (Sep 20, 2010)

arroyo said:


> I don't know why are you so frustrated about it. If you want almost i7 950 performance for half of it's price, you buy i7 930. It's normal!



It's not normal at all, it's the complete inverse of what you are talking about 

This new intel scheme =
High binned part with software locks that you have to pay for to get fully working chip

Where as nowadays things work like
Low binned ( but fully working) part that you have the chance to run at the speed of a high binned part at no extra cost.


See the difference?


----------



## Roph (Sep 20, 2010)

If you bought one of these CPUs, you paid for a CPU without hyperthreading and with 1Mb less cache. *You got exactly what you paid for*, regardless of what extra there is on the chip.

I don't know why so many of you are acting so surprised. Imagine if AMD has excellent yields on their Phenom II X4s. They still have to stock Athlon II X4s, so they will get some Phenom II X4 chips that are perfectly capable of running as a Phenom II X4 and simply disable some features and sell them as Athlon II X4s.

Vendors deliberately released lower performance chips in this manner and have done for ages. Granted, often it is because of binning (a Geforce 6800 GT chip that has some faulty shaders could be sold as a vanilla 6800), but not always.

I'll say it again, by buying one of these chips, you got exactly what you paid for. If you felt like upgrading to a chip with hyperthreading and more cache, you could buy the next chip up, take out your current CPU and drop that one in, and you would be over $100 bucks worse off. Instead, you don't even have to open your computer and can pay less than half. Even nothing, when the crack inevitably comes out.

I'd be happy if I had one of these CPUs. Price points are completely normal


----------



## Black Hades (Sep 20, 2010)

Roph said:


> *You got exactly what you paid for*, regardless of what extra there is on the chip.


No

In the buyers mind this just triggers the "unfair" switch. Hypothetically for a product x, if the B.O.M. is 100$ and they can afford to give it for 120$ while making profit, and THEN they tell you 
"Yep we're making profit but tell you what, for 50$ extra it can do more without us actually working more to make it better".

There's a reason nobody resorts to these strategies. You annoy the user by basically saying: * "We'd rather throw away our extra labour than give it to you for free." *

Second, if it can be done once it can be pretty much done without paying royalties.
This will fail, and they wont try it again. As simple as that.


----------



## pantherx12 (Sep 20, 2010)

+ 1 to black hades post, to be able to do this they are ALREADY making a profit, probably a decent one as well.

So what is actually happening here is that you are NOT getting what you pay for, they are making it seem like you pay for "extra" but that isn't what it is at all, they are selling a deliberately crippled product and then charging people to make it work properly.

I.E like selling someone a kettle without the element and then going " that will be extra suka!" 



again 


100 should cover the entire cost of the chip, they've locked some of it to squeeze more money out of idiots.


It is not the same buying a product and then buying an extra for that product.


It's the same as buying a broken product and then being forced to pay to get it working properly.


----------



## DrPepper (Sep 20, 2010)

What's the big fuss about ? 

I was initially slightly annoyed by this then I came to my senses. Without this scheme the cpu would cost £150 anyway. You now have more choice which is good. Plus it's not like your forced to buy the unlock stuff so quit bitchin'


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 20, 2010)

No, Intel isn't stupid.  To them, the processor is only worth $100.  They are just looking to make another $50 down the road without costing them more than a software download.

They would never sell a processor for less than it is worth unless they trying to get rid of old inventory.  Since they are making more inventory available, that is not the case.

The danger is that if this catches on, it will apply to all processors.  A processor that today cost $300, they would sell to you for $250-300 and charge you $100-200 ($450-500 final price) to get full functionality out of it.  Ultimately, consumers pay more for the same thing.  That's what these kinds of schemes are always about.  Think of it as DRM for processors (literally, hardware digital rights management).


----------



## pantherx12 (Sep 20, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> What's the big fuss about ?
> 
> I was initially slightly annoyed by this then I came to my senses. Without this scheme the cpu would cost £150 anyway. You now have more choice which is good. Plus it's not like your forced to buy the unlock stuff so quit bitchin'




No, the processor is worth £100 ( much less in reality) not £150, other wise they would not be able to sell it for £100 in the first place.

Get it?

It's a cheap part with an optional "upgrade" so it seems like it's worth the money.

I.E Free money for intel, £50 that goes straight into their pocket, 100% profit.


----------



## DrPepper (Sep 20, 2010)

pantherx12 said:


> No, the processor is worth £100 ( much less in reality) not £150, other wise they would not be able to sell it for £100 in the first place.
> 
> Get it?
> 
> ...



It's only worth as much as the market say it is really.


----------



## pantherx12 (Sep 20, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> It's only worth as much as the market say it is really.



Think you'll find products are worth as much as the industry makes them.

People have become accustomed to computers etc in their day to day life, so this is no longer a market that is based on want but on requirement.

Thus industry in the driving seat, not us.

If all the hardware companies started doing this then we the consumer loose not the other way round.


----------



## animal007uk (Sep 20, 2010)

I still don't like the idea but there is one way it could work as long as they don't mess with stuff to much.

2 cpu's almost identical same clock speed same bus speed one is locked down a bit while the other is fully unlocked.

Now the unlocked CPU could be say £150 but the one that is locked down = £100, then if you spend the extra £50 the locked CPU will then be exactly the same cpu as the unlocked CPU. now that ain't so bad but untill i see more im still saying its stupid and probs a a way to rip ppl of as always.


----------



## robn (Sep 20, 2010)

Processors "A" and "B" are the same chip physically. "A" has an upgradeable lock to make it's performance "100 benchpoints", whilst "B" is unlocked to give "120 benchpoints".

"A" sells in an HP/Dell/Whatever for $100. "B" adds $20 to the price. Fair enough.

Mr User pays $100 for chip "A" in his new system - he doesn't have the extra $20 available right now.

Later Mr User is enticed to pay the $50 upgrade unlock cost to give his system chip "B".

Mr User has now paid $150 for chip "B". Problem.


----------



## Black Hades (Sep 20, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> It's only worth as much as the market say it is really.



Really? I'd like to see that apply in real life, I'd like to see Intel sell it for 75% of it's manufacturing cost because we say it's worth that.


----------



## Solaris17 (Sep 20, 2010)

read the thread face palmed.


----------



## Black Hades (Sep 20, 2010)

Yeah, this whole scheme of theirs is absurd.
But I restrain myself from saying How could it possibly work in their favor?

They're just opening themselves up vulnerable to piracy schemes. That's the only real difference.


----------



## pantherx12 (Sep 20, 2010)

Thought of a better example!

Intel sell a talking birthday card for £100 ( it costs them maybe £20 to make) 
It has two messages, how ever one is software locked, and you have to call a number on the card to unlock the other message ( costing you another £50) 


Now do folks see why this is unfair? Because the "card" shouldn't even be worth £100 in the first place.

They are charging you more for the same product by "cleverly" ( as in my opinion it isn't) marketing the product.



@ Black Hades, it works in their favour as it costs intel shit all to produce the actual silicon part because they do it in such massive numbers.

They make a massive profit on the $100 initial purchase, then make another free $50 on-top of that from idiots and people who arnt saavy in business or tech etc.


----------



## Phxprovost (Sep 20, 2010)

ohh good that's just what i wanted, the shit that is plaguing the gaming market to leak over into the hardware market, fantastic, whats next?


----------



## Solaris17 (Sep 20, 2010)

Black Hades said:


> Yeah, this whole scheme of theirs is absurd.
> But I restrain myself from saying How could it possibly work in their favor?
> 
> They're just opening themselves up vulnerable to piracy schemes. That's the only real difference.



honestly I dont see how some people missed that this is an elaborate price gouging scheme. 

proc A $100

Proc B 120

upgrade $50

proc B new price 150

seriously? Their making it look like you have more options by making a cool spread sheet that shows more processors on the market. But its their software so they charge what they want, and you just happen to be poor. If that isnt capitalizing idk what is.


----------



## Steevo (Sep 20, 2010)

If DRM is broken on games before they are released how long do they expect this to last before there are numerous sites with the unlocks.

We break PS3, BIOS, smart phones, Xbox, etc..... how long do they think this will be valid for.



The other side of this is, lets say they sell a set of CPU's to a school with the intent of being able to upgrade, however a certain percentage of those corrupt data due to issues with the cache that is unlocked, or due to other die defects. How long before they get their asses sued off for selling known defective products.


----------



## Black Hades (Sep 20, 2010)

What's next Intel? A hardware hypervisor to prevent overclocking unless we give you another 50$? 
*punches himself in the mouth*


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 20, 2010)

animal007uk said:


> Stupid idea i for one wont be buying this CPU. $50 for an unlock of something is a bloody rip of if its already built into the cpu. Hope someone cracks it soon lol.



Every processor with lower specs, be it a lower cache or missing features, has those features built in, they are just disabled.  For example, the Pentium G6950 is specced as 3MB of cache and no HT.  However, it uses a standard Clarkdale core, so it really does have 4MB and the ability to use HT, but Intel disabled it.  AMD does the same thing with their processors.

They used to do this so they could sell defective processors, they just disable what is defect and sell it as a Celeron/Sempron or whatever they want to call it.  However, manufacturing processes have gotten to the point where most of the time this is done instead to simply offer products to different market segments.

Personnally, I think it is a good idea on Intels part, but I think $50 is a little expensive. But for a standard user that doesn't know how to change their own processor, it actually isn't that bad of a deal.

Also, look at what the upgrade actually gets you.  You go from a Pentium G6951 which is 2.8GHz w/ 3MB Cache and no-HT, and you are unlocking the cache to 4MB and enabling HT, turning it into essentially an i3-520(if there was such a thing), but the i3-530 is only $15 more and it is clocked higher.  But it would still cost more to actually upgrade from a G6951 to an i3-530 since taking in to have it done would cost at least $50 in labor.  This upgrade might not make sense to us, because we know how to swap out processors, but for a standard computer user that doesn't even know how to change a fan or add RAM, it makes sense...of course it also won't make much of a difference either...

And the people that are going to "crack" this are wasting their time, because anyone that would probably use the crack would probably just spend the $15 up front to get a better processor than what the crack gives in the end.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Sep 20, 2010)

This is awesome!  Maybe they can start charging us for CPU time too!!  Or better yet, how about they charge us proportionate to the number of non-Intel-compiled programs we have.  Hmmm... I got it now, how about they pay me so I don't gnaw off my arm while I scream and run around hitting myself in the head with a fry pan (which I do on Tuesdays and Thursdays anyway).

**** Intel.


----------



## AsRock (Sep 20, 2010)

I like the idea if done right. Because each time i build a system i always find that i don't have enough money so if i could upgrade without fucking around removing a CPU cooler and mobo is a good thing for me.  How ever this looks like more lame than any thing good although don't mind paying a little extra but it's not as if it unlocks cores.

Like whats been said already there be cracks for it sooner or later but what worrys me if a virus could mess around with your CPU without you even knowing before it's to late.


----------



## Solaris17 (Sep 20, 2010)

Black Hades said:


> What's next Intel? A hardware hypervisor to prevent overclocking unless we give you another 50$



The worst part is that this can only escalate to totally ridiculous. Im talking about price for one. I doubt this will be $50 forever. Not to mention they will only develop it further. such as want the unlock? sure program needs to be installed all the time. if uninstalled proc is downgraded. program calls home. maybe even a yearly fee depending on how bad piracy hits this. I mean the sky is the limit. and i will jump ship before my CPU starts calling home to "validate" itws a peice of hardware I install it it works. If i need to be connected to the internet to get what i paid for I will rage. Lets not forget all the fuck wits that will totally make off with this. I can see craigslist and B/S/T sections all over the net full of scamers selling these chips but listing them as something else and forgetting to "mention" you need to buy the upgrade after purchase to get what was originally posted.


----------



## robn (Sep 20, 2010)

Best bit:

All the Yahoo questions that go "Can I download a faster Pentiums processor?" will now have to be answered "Yes."


----------



## pantherx12 (Sep 20, 2010)

It completely baffles me how some people are missing the point here : /


----------



## Phxprovost (Sep 20, 2010)

pantherx12 said:


> It completely baffles me how some people are missing the point here : /



the only point i see is intel just found another way to rip people off, am i missing something?


----------



## pantherx12 (Sep 20, 2010)

Phxprovost said:


> the only point i see is intel just found another way to rip people off, am i missing something?



No, but that seems to be what some people are missing


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 20, 2010)

Phxprovost said:


> the only point i see is intel just found another way to rip people off, am i missing something?



Ripping them off how?

You aren't paying for these feature when you buy the original processor, so paying to unlock them later is hardly being ripped off.  If you want those feature you pay for them, either by buying a better processor or software unlocking them on your current.


----------



## Black Hades (Sep 20, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Ripping them off how?
> 
> You aren't paying for these feature when you buy the original processor, so paying to unlock them later is hardly being ripped off.  If you want those feature you pay for them, either by buying *a better processor or software unlocking them* on your current.



*A better processor* presumes somebody did x+1 (at least) extra effort to produce that "better processor" for your y+50$. Else you're just notifying the whole world you're screwing them on a daily basis. Not that we're not aware hehe.

You bought the damn thing, it's in your hands every molecule of silicone is yours, in the case where intel is holding out part of it for ransom then it's just your right to resort in a "lex talionis" manner (piracy comes to mind).


----------



## Phxprovost (Sep 20, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Ripping them off how?
> 
> You aren't paying for these feature when you buy the original processor, so paying to unlock them later is hardly being ripped off.  If you want those feature you pay for them, either by buying a better processor or software unlocking them on your current.



if you cant see it i don't know how to explain it to you, i for one am not in the habit of buying something only to have someone sell me the rest of the features on the object i just bought.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 20, 2010)

Black Hades said:


> *A better processor* presumes somebody did x+1 (at least) extra effort to produce that "better processor" for your y+50$. Else you're just notifying the whole world you're screwing them on a daily basis. Not that we're not aware hehe.
> 
> You bought the damn thing, it's in your hands every molecule of silicone is yours, in the case where intel is holding out part of it for ransom then it's just your right to resort in a "lex talionis" manner (piracy comes to mind).



What do you think better processor are?  They are the same as the worse processor, it has been this way for years, no extra effort is put into producing the better processors.

You have not paid for the features, so they are not enabled, when you buy a processor you buy a feature set, not just the physical product.  You pay for the clock speed, you pay for the features.  They are all already there, an i3-530 can do the clock speed of an i5-540, but you didn't pay for that clock speed so you don't get it.  Are you saying that a person buying an i3-530 should get the same clock speeds as an i5-660?  They are the same silicon, you paid for it, so why shouldn't you bet getting the exact same performance and features?



Phxprovost said:


> if you cant see it i don't know how to explain it to you, i for one am not in the habit of buying something only to have someone sell me the rest of the features on the object i just bought.




Well, you've got a 940, with a DDR3 memory controller that has been disabled.  Wouldn't it be nice if AMD sold a similar upgrade card to enable the DDR3 support?  Would you buy it?  Do you feel ripped off now knowing the processor you bought has disabled features?


----------



## Solaris17 (Sep 20, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Ripping them off how?
> 
> You aren't paying for these feature when you buy the original processor, so paying to unlock them later is hardly being ripped off.  If you want those feature you pay for them, either by buying a better processor or software unlocking them on your current.



sure its ripping you off. Even if you dont want the upgrade and dont buy it you buy a better processor.

like lets look at this again.

PROC A same as proc B

PROC A $100

PROC B $120

Upgrade $50

diffirential $30

but you decide not to upgrade but you want better so you grab proc C which is $130 and slightely better than proc B which is basically what your proc A basically is. Now your paying $130 for an upgrade which is only slightly better than what you have to begin with. 

Granted you can pay the $50 and get slightly less than proc C. I also understand that you get what you pay for with proc C as its technically a new proc. HOWEVER you are basing your arguments off of intelligent people. TPU users are obviously not going to be looking into this as a viable upgrade solution. However uninformed people are not going to see this. This is not a deal for them. this is not a deal for anybody. This makes all intel chips a money pit as I seriously doubt this will only apply to lowend chips for so long. Sooner or later processors of the extreme level will have this. and when they change market segments thats when it will get worse. Low end upgrade applies to XXX procs $50 midend support list XXX upgrade $70 highend unlock support list XXX $100 Noit to mention if they ever make this call home or need to be installed they can implement shit like if the program detects the chip is running out of frequency range the system shuts down. or the proc is locked, or the BIOS is reset to defaults and the next reboot everything is stock because they include in the EULA that OC is not supported what now?


----------



## Black Hades (Sep 20, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> What do you think better processor are?  They are the same as the worse processor, it has been this way for years, no extra effort is put into producing the better processors.




Yes we all know that (presumably). but they mostly sell crippled ones as Celerons or whatnot. It's one thing to sell low binned hardware so that you dont get 0 revenue from a defective i7 950 and it's another thing altogether to purposely disable working parts, not flawed or damaged elements.

I fully support the 1st strategy binning and all that it implies. Because it helps the chip maker get money from otherwise compromised items.
I do not support negative marketing strategies that say *We'd rather let it rot than give it to you for free, we're making lots of money anyway.* It's there it's in your hands therefore you own it.

What if say LG did that with it's LCD TV's? Oh you can only view movies up to 720p. Your TV can output 1080p but it will cost you extra...


----------



## scaminatrix (Sep 20, 2010)

I think there's going to be another hiccup with these.

Say I buy a Dual-Core CPU that can be unlocked to a Hex-Core.
The Warranty is; say; 2 years.
I own the CPU 2 years and 3 months, purchase the CPU upgrade, and then find 1 of the cores is defective.
Where would this leave me? Exactly where Intel would want me - looking to buy another CPU.


----------



## DanishDevil (Sep 20, 2010)

I don't think they'll ever release a dual-core to be unlocked to a hex-core. These will only be minor upgrades.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 20, 2010)

Black Hades said:


> Yes we all know that (presumably). but they mostly sell crippled ones as Celerons or whatnot. It's one thing to sell crippled hardware so that you dont get 0 revenue from a defective i7 950 and it's another thing altogether to purposely disable working parts, not flawed or damaged elements.
> 
> I fully support the 1st strategy binning and all that it implies. Because it helps the chip maker.
> I do not support negative marketing strategies that say *We'd rather let it rot than give it to you for free, we're making lots of money anyway.* It's there it's in your hands therefore you own it.
> ...



But at this point, the number of actually defective products is next to 0, so the first strategy doesn't work anymore.

If they didn't use the second, we would have to pick between 4 or 5 processor and that is it, there wouldn't be cheap processors, they would all be expensive.  Intel's processr lineup would look like this:  i5-680@$300, i7-875@$330, i7-960@$560, and i7-980X@$1000 because any processor below those would be the cut down processors that you say shouldn't exists.

We're not talking about TVs, we are talking about processors.  What is the alternative to this strategy?  Most of you seem to think the alternative is that you would just have these features to begine with *but you wouldn't!*  If this strategy did not exists, then these features would stay permanently disabled because the G6951 processor isn't supposed to have them.


----------



## Black Hades (Sep 20, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> But at this point, the number of actually defective products is next to 0, so the first strategy doesn't work anymore.
> 
> If they didn't use the second, we would have to pick between 4 or 5 processor and that is it, *there wouldn't be cheap processors*, they would all be expensive.  Intel's processr lineup would look like this:  i5-680@$300, i7-875@$330, i7-960@$560, and i7-980X@$1000 because any processor below those would be the cut down processors that you say shouldn't exists.



Oh they'd be forced to sell processors to what they're actualy worth? A tragedy indeed.
I'll shed a single tear for Intel then it's off to AMD.. one single tear.

It's impossible to leave the budget and middle segment uncovered, they'd be forced to sell good procesors at competitive prices. that's the alternative strategy as dreadfull as it sounds for them.


----------



## scaminatrix (Sep 20, 2010)

DanishDevil said:


> I don't think they'll ever release a dual-core to be unlocked to a hex-core. These will only be minor upgrades.



You know what I mean though? If I update after the warranty has expired, and it ends up dud, they're going to try every trick they can to worm out of reimbursing.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 20, 2010)

Black Hades said:


> Oh they'd be forced to sell processors to what they're actualy worth? A tragedy indeed.
> I'll shed a single tear for Intel then it's off to AMD.. one single tear.



You realize AMD already does the same thing right?  The only difference is they don't offer the option to enable what is disabled(at least not officially, and they've actually tried to stop the ability to enable the disabled features, but motherboard manufacturers are smart little bastards).



Black Hades said:


> It's impossible to leave the budget and middle segment uncovered, they'd be forced to sell good procesors at competitive prices. that's the alternative strategy as dreadfull as it sounds for them.



They already sell good processors at competitive prices.  If they were forced to sell the full processors and not disable anything or cripple them in any way, yes we might see lower prices for a while, but then AMD would go under in a heartbeat and the prices would skyrocket.  Why?  Because if they were forced to sell the 980X at $300, do you think many would buy an AMD x6 that doesn't hold a candle to it?  If the 875K was being sold at $195 do you think anyone would be buying X4 965s?


----------



## Black Hades (Sep 20, 2010)

^^ AMD tries to fill a certain market segment with it's x3 cores. It is losing money in a way by disabling a certain number of functional cores but a lot are still defective as proven by many enthusiasts. 
Also it doesnt charge you extra for a core. it's good publicity (that's a change for AMD) kind of like sweepstakes. "Get a x3 core and you just may get an extra core free" that's.

 Besides dont compare Intel prices to AMD ones.
You are right however, if this was an ultra competitive market nobody could afford schemes like the one pulled by Intel.


----------



## Solaris17 (Sep 20, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> You realize AMD already does the same thing right?  The only difference is they don't offer the option to enable what is disabled(at least not officially, and they've actually tried to stop the ability to enable the disabled features, but motherboard manufacturers are smart little bastards).



right. but that isnt guaranteed some of those cores are actually bad. Their are errors in manufacturing. Thats why AMD does it. its not like they pick and choose the cores single handidly. If one core on a wafer didnt make the cut the whole batch gets knocked down on the list. You might wind up lucky with a good one but they sure dont market them as unlockable cores.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 20, 2010)

several years ago has intel started speaking about "buy as you go" schemes for their processors .. for example: there will be one processor model only which is a 12 core. you can buy it for cheap but it will only run as dual core without ht, with reduced cache etc etc.. now you can buy upgrades to unlock the remaining functionality OR you can unlock this functionality for several months/weeks/days/hours based on your usage model

this seems to be the first implementation and testing of this possible strategy


----------



## Phxprovost (Sep 20, 2010)

W1zzard said:


> several years ago has intel started speaking about "buy as you go" schemes for their processors .. for example: there will be one processor model only which is a 12 core. you can buy it for cheap but it will only run as dual core without ht, with reduced cache etc etc.. now you can buy upgrades to unlock the remaining functionality OR you can unlock this functionality for several months/weeks/days/hours based on your usage model
> 
> this seems to be the first implementation and testing of this possible strategy



and if this becomes mainstream i will find a new hobby as hardware will have no resale value and all the fun will be taken out of building and oc'ing computers


----------



## Solaris17 (Sep 20, 2010)

Phxprovost said:


> and if this becomes mainstream i will find a new hobby as hardware will have no resale value and all the fun will be taken out of building and oc'ing computers



yup. That is ridiculous.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 20, 2010)

Black Hades said:


> ^^ AMD tries to fill a certain market segment with it's x3 cores. It is losing money in a way by disabling a certain number of functional cores but a lot are still defective as proven by many enthusiasts.
> Also it doesnt charge you extra for a core. it's good publicity (that's a change for AMD) kind of like sweepstakes. "Get a x3 core and you just may get an extra core free" that's.
> 
> Besides dont compare Intel prices to AMD ones.
> You are right however, if this was an ultra competitive market nobody could afford schemes like the one pulled by Intel.



Intel is doing the same thing, the only difference is they are doing far more minor amounts of disabling.  What is worse?  Disabling a small section of Cache and HT, or disabling an entire Core(or two)?

The only difference is that Intel is letting users pay to unlock the disabled features, and AMD is offering no way to unlock the disabled features on their processors(again, it was the clever motherboard manufacturers that figured out how to unlock the disabled features, AMD had nothing to do with, and even attempted to block the feature in their latest series of chipsets).

And furthermore, this unlocking is for pre-built systems, which defintiely can't unlock AMD's disable features, so you're arguments really don't apply.


----------



## Black Hades (Sep 20, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> [...]do you think many would buy an AMD x6 that doesn't hold a candle to it?  If the 875K was being sold at $195 do you think anyone would be buying X4 965s?



Real prices keep the economy healthy. if Intel would sell it'z 965 at say 195$, AMD would be in hot water indeed and would have to pull some serious research or ind. espionage or some other deus ex machina scheme. But that's how competition should work really.


----------



## DanishDevil (Sep 20, 2010)

W1zzard said:


> several years ago has intel started speaking about "buy as you go" schemes for their processors .. for example: there will be one processor model only which is a 12 core. you can buy it for cheap but it will only run as dual core without ht, with reduced cache etc etc.. now you can buy upgrades to unlock the remaining functionality OR you can unlock this functionality for several months/weeks/days/hours based on your usage model
> 
> this seems to be the first implementation and testing of this possible strategy



Holy crap that's a scary thing. I guess it would be cheaper for Intel to only manufacture one type of die, and have everything software-controlled. How are they going to keep people from cracking them, though?


----------



## btarunr (Sep 20, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> AMD is offering no way to unlock the disabled features on their processors(again, it was the clever motherboard manufacturers that figured out how to unlock the disabled features, AMD had nothing to do with, and even attempted to block the feature in their latest series of chipsets).
> 
> And furthermore, this unlocking is for pre-built systems, which defintiely can't unlock AMD's disable features, so you're arguments really don't apply.



Nah, if AMD didn't want there to be a way to unlock cores, there wouldn't have been one. It could simply pull up motherboard vendors for hurting its business by allowing users to unlock cores, and there's no intention from AMD to do so.


----------



## Black Hades (Sep 20, 2010)

DanishDevil said:


> How are they going to keep people from cracking them, though?



Once you open a door things WILL circulate both ways.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 20, 2010)

Black Hades said:


> Real prices keep the economy healthy. if Intel would sell it'z 965 at say 195$, AMD would be in hot water indeed and would have to pull some serious research or ind. espionage or some other deus ex machina scheme. But that's how competition should work really.



No, competition keeps the economy healthy, and Intel is competitive, they are just in the position where they can disable features from their processors and make competing processors.


----------



## Phxprovost (Sep 20, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> No, competition keeps the economy healthy, and Intel is competitive, they are just in the position where they can disable features from their processors and make competing processors.



haha intel is competitive? i do recall a recent lawsuit by the EU....


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 20, 2010)

DanishDevil said:


> I guess it would be cheaper for Intel to only manufacture one type of die, and have everything software-controlled



they are already doing that .. for example i7 930, 950, 960, 975 are all the same piece of silicon, made on the same fabrication line with the exact same specs, same everything.

once the dies are finished they go into testing for defects (broken cache? bad cores? leakage current? maximum clock speed? <more>) and get binned to potential products.

now when intel needs to make a bunch of new i930s for example they take from the "low end" bin and produce those chips .. if they have a big big order and the low end bin is empty they'll take from the next higher bin. always better to get rid of inventory and make some money

same is happening with every processor, every gpu, basically every piece of silicon


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 20, 2010)

Phxprovost said:


> haha intel is competitive? i do recall a recent lawsuit by the EU....



Yeah, and the EU also says Microsoft including IE and Media Player for free is anti-competitive...so pretty much anything by the EU is full of shit...

But that is hardly what I meant and you know it, Intel is competitive in price with AMD.



W1zzard said:


> they are already doing that .. for example i7 930, 950, 960, 975 are all the same piece of silicon, made on the same fabrication line with the exact same specs, same everything.
> 
> once the dies are finished they go into testing for defects (broken cache? bad cores? leakage current? maximum clock speed? <more>) and get binned to potential products.
> 
> ...




Exactly.  People aren't getting ripped of by this process, if they wanted the better processor they should pay for it.  The only difference is that Intel is now offering the ability to actually use the features that are already there if you want without the hassle of actually swapping out processors.


----------



## Black Hades (Sep 20, 2010)

As a reminder, I'm not necessarily frowning on Intel's approach. In fact I really hope they pursue this.

May they reap the profits and bear the brunt of piracy since they opened that door
I know I wont be paying extra. Intel will get money and some profit and we'll unlock ourselves the little extra on the side.
Everybody wins except maybe a CEO or five that don't get to buy their 14th yacht


----------



## Dave63 (Sep 20, 2010)

A page out of Microsoft's play book.LOL


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 20, 2010)

Black Hades said:


> As a reminder, I'm not necessarily frowning on Intel's approach. In fact I really hope they pursue this.
> 
> May they reap the profits and bear the brunt of piracy since they opened that door
> I know I wont be paying extra. Intel will get money and some profit and we'll unlock ourselves the little extra on the side. Everybody wins except maybe a CEO or five that don't get to buy their 14th yacht



Well, like I said, this seems to be a pre-built only thing right now.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see enthusiast motherboard that have the ability to unlock these features for free, just like there are enthusiast boards to unlock AMD processors.


----------



## towncaptain (Sep 20, 2010)

What if you crack this thing illegally, Intel might turn your i3 to a Pentium 4 muahahahaha


----------



## Black Hades (Sep 20, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if we see enthusiast motherboard that have the ability to unlock these features for free, just like there are enthusiast boards to unlock AMD processors.



Since Intel plans to do this via software it doesn't require certain hardware conjunctions so it will be much simpler than that. it will be simple once somebody hacks it. Unless this will rely on a TPM module of course.

Reminds me Intel got owned with it's HDCP Bluray protection scheme a few days ago. This should be interesting



towncaptain said:


> What if you crack this thing illegally, Intel might turn your i3 to a Pentium 4 muahahahaha


Over my dead sealed ports they will


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 20, 2010)

Black Hades said:


> Since Intel plans to do this via software it doesn't require certain hardware conjunctions so it will be much simpler than that. it will be simple once somebody hacks it. Unless this will rely on a TPM module of course.
> 
> Reminds me Intel got owned with it's HDCP Bluray protection scheme a few days ago. This should be interesting



Yes, but right now it only seems to work with a single pre-built model from gateway, so there has to be something special in the hardware.  I'm guessing something special in the BIOS that the software flips to enable the features.  I'm sure it will be rather easy for motherboard manufacturers to add this feature, but I don't think it is simply software that can be used on any computer. But we will have to see as more information becomes available.


----------



## Black Hades (Sep 20, 2010)

You do realize that this software unlock scheme should work on all and any motherboard supporting the processor right? So if you cant use the neutered version the point is moot.

If Procesor X can be used by motherboard Y and unlockable by software Z. If you can pair cpu with motherboard then this wont be an issue we'll see.

Off-topic:
This thread is getting thick, those new to it will be in danger of headaches so I'm done till new info arises.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 20, 2010)

Black Hades said:


> You do realize that this software unlock scheme should work on all and any motherboard supporting the processor right? So if you cant use the neutered version the point is moot.
> 
> If Procesor X can be used by motherboard Y and unlockable by software Z. If you can pair cpu with motherboard then this wont be an issue we'll see.
> 
> ...



Yes, but it is also a "one time process portable between software re-installations", so there has to be some kind of hardware process involved with the unlocking.


----------



## Steevo (Sep 20, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, but right now it only seems to work with a single pre-built model from gateway, so there has to be something special in the hardware.  I'm guessing something special in the BIOS that the software flips to enable the features.  I'm sure it will be rather easy for motherboard manufacturers to add this feature, but I don't think it is simply software that can be used on any computer. But we will have to see as more information becomes available.



But a exploit is all it takes, and everythign can be visualized. Either by brute force or by careful calculation.



newtekie1 said:


> Yes, but it is also a "one time process portable between software re-installations", so there has to be some kind of hardware process involved with the unlocking.




Much like BIOS flashing?


----------



## pantherx12 (Sep 20, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Intel is doing the same thing, the only difference is they are doing far more minor amounts of disabling.  What is worse?  Disabling a small section of Cache and HT, or disabling an entire Core(or two)?
> 
> The only difference is that Intel is letting users pay to unlock the disabled features, and AMD is offering no way to unlock the disabled features on their processors(again, it was the clever motherboard manufacturers that figured out how to unlock the disabled features, AMD had nothing to do with, and even attempted to block the feature in their latest series of chipsets).
> 
> And furthermore, this unlocking is for pre-built systems, which defintiely can't unlock AMD's disable features, so you're arguments really don't apply.




Man I don't get you at all, you always seem to favour defending a company.


What's not to get.

AMD. Disable a broken part of a piece of silicon/ charge you less due to that / has a chance to unlock for FREE


Intel new scheme.

Processor has no flaws what so ever, didly squat! 
Processors sell for cheap initially ( yet being able to sell them this way shows that they are in-fact making profit before adding extra, I.E the chip is already paid for, your getting what you pay for.
Intel charges for something that should already exist in the first place.


MASSIVE difference to what goes on else where.


How you could even remotely misconstrue this as a good idea or similar to what goes on already and confuses me a great deal, got stocks in Intel or something?

Only INTEL benefit from this, they are ALREADY making money from the initial sale, they are making MORE money for FREE ( I.E the upgrade costs them NOTHING) 

If you support this then you support intel charging you for nothing at all.


And silicon always has defects, 0% failure my ass, you can even see the difference in performance chip to chip ( over-clocking potential, heat out-put, voltage requirements)


Now this is not an attack at you one bit, but you seem to completely miss the point here.



The extra $50 is for NOTHING


----------



## Steevo (Sep 20, 2010)

Nothing but IP. 

Hot topic these days, I sell GPS board upgrades for $2,000.00 and you get.... a passcode.


IP protection is important, however the method and scale of this is going to make for piracy for sure.


----------



## wolf (Sep 20, 2010)

I have mixed feelings about this process....

I wonder how long till it is hacked... if ever that is.


----------



## KainXS (Sep 20, 2010)

problem is if they start doing this, whats next, will they start forcing people to buy cards to overclock their pc's unless they buy a really high end or K model CPU, what is next.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 20, 2010)

pantherx12 said:


> Man I don't get you at all, you always seem to favour defending a company.



Because I see their side, and am not just a greedy customer that wants something I didn't pay for, and if I don't get it I scream ripped off.




pantherx12 said:


> What's not to get.
> 
> AMD. Disable a broken part of a piece of silicon/ charge you less due to that / has a chance to unlock for FREE



At this point, AMD is not disabling anything broken, they are disabling completely functional pieces of silicon just like Intel, and they are doing it to fill the lower markets that have higher demand.

AMD is not offering the ability to unlock for free, that is a motherboard manufacturer thing.  AMD might be rolling with it since it is good marketting for them, but they certainly aren't offering that ability officially.



pantherx12 said:


> Intel new scheme.
> 
> Processor has no flaws what so ever, didly squat!
> Processors sell for cheap initially ( yet being able to sell them this way shows that they are in-fact making profit before adding extra, I.E the chip is already paid for, your getting what you pay for.
> ...



This isn't a new scheme at all as I've already pointed out.  The only part that is new here is that Intel is actually giving the ability to use the parts that are disabled if you want to pay for them.  The alternative is the same old scheme that has been used for years, you didn't pay for it, so you don't get it.




pantherx12 said:


> How you could even remotely misconstrue this as a good idea or similar to what goes on already and confuses me a great deal, got stocks in Intel or something?



How you could not see this as what has already been going on for years I don't understand.



pantherx12 said:


> Only INTEL benefit from this, they are ALREADY making money from the initial sale, they are making MORE money for FREE ( I.E the upgrade costs them NOTHING)



I know, it is so unthinkable that a company would try to increase their profits.  How horrible of them.  Maybe one day unicef will get in the CPU making business.

Only benefits Intel?  I don't think so.  Look at it from the average consumer standpoint, not an enthusiast that knows how to change out their processor.  How much is an average consumer going to spend to upgrade a processor in a computer?  Well geek squad charges a minimum of $50 in labor, you might get a local shop to do it cheaper, but probably not a whole lot(my shop charges $35 or $55 if it is one of those really tiny computers that is a pain to take apart).  Then there is the price of the processor, a new better one costing maybe another $100 or more and that is just to go about the same step up as the $50 upgrade would net you.  Yes, you can try to resell the old processor, usually on ebay, but most average consumers again would not even know where to start with this.  So how is Intel offering a $50 software upgrade that the average consumer can install themselves without voiding any warrantees only benefitting Intel?



pantherx12 said:


> If you support this then you support intel charging you for nothing at all.



Intel is not charging you for the features that are disabled, that is why the processor is cheaper than the same processor with the features enabled.  That is why the G6950 is $100 and the i3-530 is $120.  Buying initially those features are with $20, if you don't want/need them, then you don't pay for them and save $20.  If you decide you need them later, you pay to get them.

I fail to see how you see this as Intel charing for nothing, do you just not understand that these processors are cheaper for a reason?



pantherx12 said:


> And silicon always has defects, 0% failure my ass, you can even see the difference in performance chip to chip ( over-clocking potential, heat out-put, voltage requirements)



Obviously Intel has perfected their manufacturing process to the point that they have enough silicon laying around that they can guarantee that these processor won't have defects.

Of course the alternative explanation is that they are taking these processor from the next higher bin, in which case you are already getting better silicon than what you paid for, and Intel is selling a $120 processor for $100 initially with an upgrade option if you choose.



pantherx12 said:


> ow this is not an attack at you one bit, but you seem to completely miss the point here.
> 
> 
> 
> The extra $50 is for NOTHING



No, you miss the point.  The $50 is for features that you haven't paid for initially, yes they are there, but you haven't paid to use them, that is why the processor was so cheap to begine with.


----------



## pantherx12 (Sep 20, 2010)

Your still missing the point though they are still making massive profits on the 100$ initial costs, they are being gready. Not us, not me.

When a product costs a company absolutely shit all ( the upgrade) and they charge $50 for it that's called taking the piss where I'm from.


"Obviously Intel has perfected their manufacturing process to the point that they have enough silicon laying around that they can guarantee that these processor won't have defects."

Yeah, I'm just not going to reply actually.

We're not in the same world lol


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 20, 2010)

pantherx12 said:


> Your still missing the point though they are still making massive profits on the 100$ initial costs, they are being gready. Not us, not me.
> 
> When a product costs a company absolutely shit all ( the upgrade) and they charge $50 for it that's called taking the piss where I'm from.



On a per piece basis, they probably make next to nothing on the initial $100 sale, of course they make up for that by selling a metric shit load of them.

Now, if they are taking a product that they could sell for $120, and selling it for $100, which is what they are doing, then they are losing $20 in profit per piece.  Yes, in the end the product costs the consumer $30 more than just buying the higher processor initially, but that is the cost of being cheap in the beginning.  And Intel is also taking a gamble that some people will not even use the upgrade, so for just as many times they make $30 more by someone taking the upgrade, they are probably loosing $20 by someone not(in fact  probably more people will not than do).


----------



## pantherx12 (Sep 20, 2010)

Newtekie no offence but it seems you don't know about the manufacturing process or the business side of things, I don't mean to insult you at all but damn, if you think it costs intel even close to $100 for a single cpu then you are mistaken.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 20, 2010)

pantherx12 said:


> Newtekie no offence but it seems you don't know about the manufacturing process or the business side of things, I don't mean to insult you at all but damn, if you think it costs intel even close to $100 for a single cpu then you are mistaken.



And you understand that there is more cost than just the materials right?  There are research costs to develope the core design, labor costs to manufacture and test/bin the silicon, cust to produce and maintain manufacturing facilities, marketting costs for advertising.

Then of course there is the fact that $100 is the retail price, that has the resellers profit added in also.  When you buy a $100 G6950 from Newegg, do you think Intel gets all of that $100?

I think you are the one that doesn't understand the manufacturing or business side.

I'm not saying Intel doesn't make a sizable profit off the silicon alone, but their overall profit on a $100 processor is probably under $10 at the end of the day when all costs are considered, and it would be $30 if they sold that processor at $120 like they could have.


----------



## pantherx12 (Sep 20, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> And you understand that there is more cost than just the materials right?



Yes, for I have not been shot through the head recently.


Believe what you want man, I'm done


----------



## theonedub (Sep 20, 2010)

Im 100% with Newtekie on this, you people who think you are being ripped off amaze me with your thought process.


----------



## Solaris17 (Sep 20, 2010)

you know with all aside im still stuck on how they figured an extra 300mhz and 128kb of L2 was worth $50 i didnt know you could put a price on that. were did they pull that equation from? Maybe im just retarded.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Sep 20, 2010)

Solaris17 said:


> you know with all aside im still stuck on how they figured an extra 300mhz and 128kb of L2 was worth $50 i didnt know you could put a price on that. were did they pull that equation from? Maybe im just retarded.



They looked at Best Buy customers and realized a market filled with people that believed they were getting a good deal just because the place is called Best Buy. _A fool and his money will soon part._


----------



## theonedub (Sep 20, 2010)

This is like the AMD Sempron 140 vs the Athlon II 240. Identical silicon, just disabled some parts to have an option in the entry level market segment. 

Had AMD successfully squashed ACC/Unlocking or MB manufacturers never added the feature to their motherboards would everyone be up in arms over buying their disabled Semprons? The fact is you paid $35 bucks for your Sempron and not $70 for the fully enabled silicon as in the 240. The argument that you aren't getting what you paid for is complete stupidity.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 20, 2010)

Solaris17 said:


> you know with all aside im still stuck on how they figured an extra 300mhz and 128kb of L2 was worth $50 i didnt know you could put a price on that. were did they pull that equation from? Maybe im just retarded.



How does it perform compared to the competition, how much can they successfully charge for it.

Look at the X4 955 and 965. Why does one higher multiplier, yielding 200MHz more clock speed, equate to $15 when the multipliers are unlocked already?  Look at the i7 950 and 970.  Why does 140MHz equate to $270?

That is just how the industry works.


----------



## wolf (Sep 21, 2010)

jsut read this last page too, gotta say I'm with newtekie on this one.


----------



## Frick (Sep 21, 2010)

I just spend alot of time thinking about this and I was about to post and see that newtekie already said it. ^^


----------



## AphexDreamer (Sep 21, 2010)

LOL WHAT! Greedy Customers! This is nothing but Greed on Intel's side.


----------



## Black Hades (Sep 21, 2010)

@ newtekie1 & theonedub

[trolling]

Maybe in the US of A this business model flies occasionaly but here in
"socialist Europe" we like to get some extra toil if you want more money
How is this mentality not healthy? 

[/trolling]

What you're supporting is quite possibly against the very principles of productivity, next thing you'll say that pyramid and Ponzo schemes are perfectly ok as well.

As a graduate of economical and political sciences I'm offended by strategies that work against the very grain of progress.
R&D, marketing and bureaucracy (in a healthy business environment) always go hand in hand, each of them nurturing and keeping the other two in balance. When one is out of sync it's mostly in the detriment of the consumer, producer or both. 

I presume Intel know this very very well and I respect them for trying this (not many corporations can afford this luxury) but it really is in our hands as much as it is in theirs.


----------



## Frick (Sep 21, 2010)

Black Hades said:


> What you're supporting is quite possibly against the very principles of productivity, next thing you'll say that pyramid and Ponzo schemes are perfectly ok as well.



Everyone is already pretty much doing it (without a way to enable the disabled stuff) and the entire industry seems to do pretty good.


----------



## ObSo-1337 (Sep 21, 2010)

Doesn't this void your warrenty aswell? Since overclocking your CPU does change the way the cpu is meant to run. So if a novice user OC's it too high thinking "MORE SPEED = GOOD TIMES" then frying the cpu, means intel is screwing you out of $50 and a cpu. Or am i being daft?


----------



## HookeyStreet (Sep 21, 2010)

Robbing bar stewards!!!

AMD FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!



ObSo-1337 said:


> Doesn't this void your warrenty aswell? Since overclocking your CPU does change the way the cpu is meant to run. So if a novice user OC's it too high thinking "MORE SPEED = GOOD TIMES" then frying the cpu, means intel is screwing you out of $50 and a cpu. Or am i being daft?



Nope, sounds like the kind of cheap move they would pull.  You will obviously have a disclaimer to accept before your CPU is unlocked


----------



## Black Hades (Sep 21, 2010)

Frick said:


> Everyone is already pretty much doing it (without a way to enable the disabled stuff) and the entire industry seems to do pretty good.



No, you're generalizing.

 Yes many do it, but not all, and for a myriad of reasons: Like selling a sub-par chip as a budget piece instead of 0 profit for throwing it away.
Or because certain patent or contract prevents you for activating certain portions of a chip except if in the service of company x y or z. 

That's another topic altogether. There is no physical, legal or (ethical) economic reason that prevents Intel from allowing you to use this product's full capacity. It's their prerogative to resort to such business practices as it's ours to try to keep them in line if we can by the means at our disposal. 

You're not doing your part as a consumer, your goal is to get as much as possible from a provider for the minimum amount of money, theirs is to get the maximum amount of cash from you for their services/amenities. Keep that in mind when choosing your side of the barricade.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 21, 2010)

Black Hades said:


> That's another topic altogether. There is no physical, legal or (ethical) economic reason that prevents Intel from allowing you to use this product's full capacity.



Sure there are several ethical economic reasons that prevent Intel from allowing your to use the products full capacity, we've told you that already.

It is more cost effective to design and manufacturer one product with all the capabilities, then modify that product to fit market demand.  This allows you to broaden your market presense and allows you to offer your products to more customers.

Be it slightly lowering the clock speed, disabling cache, disabling entire cores, disabling feature sets, disabling memory controllers(video cards), or disabling shaders(again video cards) disabling features allows chip manufacturers to offer higher margin products with value added features compared to the cheaper products.  This is hardly unethical.  The person buying the cheaper product gets what they pay for, and the person buying the more expensive product gets what they pay for, nothing unethical about it.  The processor is cheaper for a reason.  Could they offer the features with the cheaper product?  Yes, but then there is no money in selling the higher end chips because no one would buy them over the cheaper chip with the same features.



ObSo-1337 said:


> Doesn't this void your warrenty aswell? Since overclocking your CPU does change the way the cpu is meant to run. So if a novice user OC's it too high thinking "MORE SPEED = GOOD TIMES" then frying the cpu, means intel is screwing you out of $50 and a cpu. Or am i being daft?



Why would it void your warranty?  Running the processor outside of its operating parameters voids the warranty, doing this upgrade changes the operating parameters, it does not make the processor run outside them.


----------



## Frick (Sep 21, 2010)

I can see why people don't like this, but I don't see how this will be changed any time soon. As w1z said, this is the deal with pretty much every piece of silicon out there and Intel simply offers a way to enable that stuff (as newteke explains over and over).

And of course we want as much as possible for as little as possible, saying otherwise is probably wrong. But unfortunately the world does not work like that. It never has.


----------



## Solaris17 (Sep 21, 2010)

this works out fantastic because I want to give Intel $50


----------



## Imsochobo (Sep 21, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Yeah, and the EU also says Microsoft including IE and Media Player for free is anti-competitive...so pretty much anything by the EU is full of shit...
> .



So korea, japan, USA, russia.... all of them are full of shit?


EU says MS have to allow uninstall of IE if wanted.
Opera says it should be a choice what to install.
EU have to bring opera's case further.

How did MS kill Netscape ?
Buy off companies.
Bundle it with windows.
End of netscape.

Dell have already confessed that they were threatened BY intel.

no more proof needed.


Guys on, ALready doing it ?.
Buy a tripplecore.. unlock it please, 1 out of 5 may do it, maybe all 5, testing theese chips for it cost more money than its worth to AMD.

Unlocking gfx, well I did one of mine, it didnt work, didnt even boot... got a rma tho 
that one worked, but its not, "We're holding back performance" attitude.
amd have held back on 955 965. sooo high voltage for so little...
anyways, mostly it's been, this chip passed all the required tests to pass for a "XT" but it failed the additional, lets make a PRO.
It's not meant to gain them money, but protect their reputation, and not deliver DOA cards.. even though it actually could perfectly work, but the other may not.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 21, 2010)

And yes, most of the anti-competitive lawsuits from whatever country are full of shit, but the EU is especially full, almost bursting at the seams actually.

Yes, and there is nothing saying Intel still isn't doing the same thing.

They might still be lowered binned processors that Intel is binning that way to protect their reputation, and that have failed one test that prevented them from becoming an i3.  No one can even really know that these processor would have even made it as i3's except Intel.

If this chips fails to bin as an i3-530 it is made into a Pentium.  The difference between those two means a clock speed decrease, disabled 1MB of L3, and disabled HT.  Then they bin the processors once more.  The ones that fail the L3 or HT tests get binned at G6950 with no upgrade option, and the ones that pass those tests get binned as G6951 with the option to upgrade.

Did you ever consider that?


----------



## qubit (Sep 21, 2010)

I knew this would be a controversial subject...


----------



## Wile E (Sep 22, 2010)

qubit said:


> Because they simply disabled chips where parts of it were allegedly unuseable and didn't try to cash in on "unlocking" them.





FordGT90Concept said:


> Because the GPU vendors don't release software that reenable those disabled portions because the GPU is instable if they do.  Intel is releasing a product that is *known* to be capable of doing more but they decide not to just for monetary reasons.  I've never heard of any company doing that before.
> 
> The equivilent would be like AMD and NVIDIA realasing GPUs with a second memory controller and double the RAM on the card but that memory controller (and thusly, the extra RAM wired to it) is disabled unless you pony up to enable it.  Or AMD and NVIDIA releasing GPUs with the full count of functioning shader units but having disabled half of them unless you pay again to enable them.
> 
> ...


No, the ability of the silicon isn't the only factor in disabling parts of a gpu or cpu these days. All manufacturers will disable;e perfectly good silicon these days to meet demand. That's why so many AMD's unlock.

The difference here is, Intel guaranties that unlock, but unfortunately, also charges for it.



pantherx12 said:


> + 1 to black hades post, to be able to do this they are ALREADY making a profit, probably a decent one as well.
> 
> So what is actually happening here is that you are NOT getting what you pay for, they are making it seem like you pay for "extra" but that isn't what it is at all, they are selling a deliberately crippled product and then charging people to make it work properly.
> 
> ...



No, it performs at the level of $100 out of the box. That's all that matters. You paid $100, and got $100 worth of performance. That's perfectly fair.

Now, that doesn't mean the upgrade price is fair. The upgraded price needs to match what it would cost to get the more powerful chip to begin with, plus maybe a couple bucks. So if the upgrade makes it equivalent to a $120, the upgrade should only be like $22. Overall, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept, it just depends on how the execute it.



Black Hades said:


> Yes we all know that (presumably). but they mostly sell crippled ones as Celerons or whatnot. It's one thing to sell low binned hardware so that you dont get 0 revenue from a defective i7 950 and it's another thing altogether to purposely disable working parts, not flawed or damaged elements.
> 
> I fully support the 1st strategy binning and all that it implies. Because it helps the chip maker get money from otherwise compromised items.
> I do not support negative marketing strategies that say *We'd rather let it rot than give it to you for free, we're making lots of money anyway.* It's there it's in your hands therefore you own it.
> ...


See my point above. Not all disabled silicon is defective. *All silicon manufacturers disable fully functioning silicon to meet market demands. Most low end hardware is not defective anymore, just purposely disabled to fit a market segment.*

This is the point you and Panther seem to be missing.

This is the same exact thing, except they didn't permanently disable it, and give you the option of re-unlocking it.

This appeals to people that can't afford that $120 cpu right now, they can only afford the $100 cpu. So, they either buy a permanently locked $100 cpu, an unlockable $100 cpu with the same specs as the permanently locked one, or they don't buy a computer at all? What would you choose?


----------



## cheezburger (Sep 22, 2010)

it is much more risky to oc on software than on bios.


----------



## pantherx12 (Sep 22, 2010)

Didn't miss that at all Will-e.

I know that, and yet still think what I think.

Won't go into detail again I clearly can't explain myself with written words.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 22, 2010)

pantherx12 said:


> Didn't miss that at all Will-e.
> 
> I know that, and yet still think what I think.
> 
> Won't go into detail again I clearly can't explain myself with written words.



So then, just respond to this line, if you would:



Wile E said:


> This appeals to people that can't afford that $120 cpu right now, they can only afford the $100 cpu. So, they either buy a permanently locked $100 cpu, an unlockable $100 cpu with the same specs as the permanently locked one, or they don't buy a computer at all? What would you choose?


----------



## pantherx12 (Sep 22, 2010)

I'll try one more time.

Basically the one that is $120 at the moment can obviously be sold at $100 considering they even selling the 100 one.

It's just Marketing, making higher tier hardware seem better value and making it seem like you get a cheap step up on low tier hardware, but the fact of the matter is it's not low tier hardware, it's the same chip as the 120 one, it's just so intel can sell the same product twice, even though it should be selling for $100 in the first instance.


I'm just useless at explaining with text guys, dyslexic like a champ, makes it hard.


I insist that this is different from current practices but lack the ability to explain why, so hopefully the pricing thing helped a little .


----------



## theonedub (Sep 22, 2010)

Panther, what do you think of the Sempron vs Athlon II X2 240 then? Should AMD be selling the Athlon 240 for $35 since they sell the identical (silicon wise w/ intentional disabling) Sempron 140 for that price? That's what your logic says. 

Keep in mind unlocking is not something AMD ever intended to happen.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 22, 2010)

pantherx12 said:


> I'll try one more time.
> 
> Basically the one that is $120 at the moment can obviously be sold at $100 considering they even selling the 100 one.
> 
> ...



Don't get me wrong, I get your side entirely.  If the $120 processor and $100 processor are costing Intel the same to manufacture, and they can sell it for $100 and still make a profit, then why not just sell the full featured version at $100 and make the customer happy.

Well, because they are a company and not Unicef, thats why.  It is their job to maximize profits.

But the truth is we don't even know the reall process going on here.  Think of it like this:

Intel is binning their silicon.  A batch of silicon fails to meet the requirements to be an i3-530, so they throw it in the Pentium G6950 bin.  Now, they are deciding to rebin that silicon, and if the L3 checks out and HT works, it is thrown in the G6951 bin and sold with the option to unlock the L3 and enable HT, if either of those test fail then it is thrown back in the G6950 bin.  

So what if that is the case?  What if these chips were never destined to be higher end i3-530s anyway?  Would you rather they never re-did that binning to make sure the L3 was indeed functional and HT did indeed work?  The processor would have been a $100 G6950 anyway.

The fact is we don't even know that these processor would have made it as a higher processor.  We all are assuming that they would have.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 24, 2010)

pantherx12 said:


> I'll try one more time.
> 
> Basically the one that is $120 at the moment can obviously be sold at $100 considering they even selling the 100 one.



I'll also try one more time.

EVERYONE does this. Those $100 AMD chips are actually disabled more expensive parts, and if they binned them, they could make a good portion of them into a faster part, but they don't.

Your argument is nonsense, really. Intel isn't, never has been, and never should be, obligated to sell you a 4 core cpu with Hyperthreading for $100 just because the part passed the binning tests.

And you still didn't answer my question.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 24, 2010)

Wile E said:


> No, the ability of the silicon isn't the only factor in disabling parts of a gpu or cpu these days. All manufacturers will disable;e perfectly good silicon these days to meet demand. That's why so many AMD's unlock.
> 
> The difference here is, Intel guaranties that unlock, but unfortunately, also charges for it.


And that's what bothers me.  The entire industry might move in that direction.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 24, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> And that's what bothers me.  The entire industry might move in that direction.



If a crack comes out, it doesn't bother me in the slightest.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 24, 2010)

Somehow I suspect a crack wouldn't be easy.  We're talking about software that's running on hardware made by the same company that, not to mention, made HDCP which took almost a decade to break and it is a hardware break at that.  The odds are pretty poor...unless they really don't put much effort in to it.

Knowing what we know, I'd say there is a 50/50 chance of it being cracked within 10 years.  I would say that diminishes to 25/75 by 20 years and 1/99 by 30 years.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 24, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Somehow I suspect a crack wouldn't be easy.  We're talking about software that's running on hardware made by the same company that, not to mention, made HDCP which took almost a decade to break and it is a hardware break at that.  The odds are pretty poor...unless they really don't put much effort in to it.
> 
> Knowing what we know, I'd say there is a 50/50 chance of it being cracked within 10 years.  I would say that diminishes to 25/75 by 20 years and 1/99 by 30 years.



It's a bios flash or tpm. Once you apply the update, it works OS independent, and is permanent. 

I bet it's cracked in a couple weeks.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 24, 2010)

Wile E said:


> It's a bios flash or tpm. Once you apply the update, it works OS independent, and is permanent.
> 
> I bet it's cracked in a couple weeks.



I bet you it is just a hidden BIOS setting that gets switched when the update is installed.

And I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing companies like ASUS allow you to access that switch somehow through their BIOS.

But then again that is more hope than what I think will really happen since I know Intel too well.


----------



## vagxtr (Nov 15, 2010)

arroyo said:


> It would be nice to know that your CPU has unlockable potential. I would be so happy to know, that for 50$ my Q9550 could have turbo technology or 2 more cores. It's just about creating right products for low budget by locking features of better products.



LOL. Seems like people would buy ec that intel has for sale 

Still this doesnt make it ripoff for whatever reason. You go there buy cheap processor and they lure you to buy some sticker-code that you inconveniently must keep somewhere and use everytime you clean installation. Would it work on all-winos or non-winos situations? It's could be simple customer ripoff just on basis that now intel doesnt need to engage in chip price wars but to lure gullible non-tech savvy customers to buying some obsolete chip and then pay premium as they bought fully featured chip year ago.

I wonder if that soft will implement bug-feature that ghosted backups wont re-enable chip full functionality  It would really be great to see webshow feat. intels nuisance-chip-upgrade aint that sweet after all.


----------



## micropage7 (Nov 15, 2010)

ok lets see, will it unlock permanently? How if we put on other board? In my opinion it wouldnt b wise 2 sold chip like that, its like (what we say? Kinda cheated maybe) i rather choose the AMD does


----------



## qubit (Nov 15, 2010)

@vagxtr

You only have to use the unlock code once. It's set permanently in the hardware after that.

And I agree, it is a ripoff to lure computer illiterate buyers.


----------



## vagxtr (Nov 15, 2010)

qubit said:


> You only have to use the unlock code once. It's set permanently in the hardware after that.



Then i misunderstood the story  I thought you have to keep _The Code_ software renders for you after inputting _The Key_ you bought from _official reseller_


> The service works by the purchase of an upgrade key that the user has to feed into the software, which is then verified by Intel's activation server, following successful verification, the software unlocks the processor's features. This is a one-time process, *portable between software reinstallations*.



... well thnx for explain. This seems "fair enough"


----------



## Wile E (Nov 15, 2010)

qubit said:


> @vagxtr
> 
> You only have to use the unlock code once. It's set permanently in the hardware after that.
> 
> And I agree, it is a ripoff to lure computer illiterate buyers.



It's not a ripoff unless they price gouge for the unlock. We can't judge it's value without knowing the costs, now can we?


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Nov 15, 2010)

Personally, i think this is a GREAT move by Intel. Why? Because more of the "sales margin" goes to Intel rather than to distribution and the retailer.  I guess you could argue it is abuse of the distribution network.

Take two processors, A and X. A = retail $100 and X =  retail $1000

What slice of the cake (or another way, what costs) are associated with distribution, wholesale and retail? Let's say it is 40%. So Intel gets $60 for processor A and $600 for processor X, and $40 is "shared" in the channel for A and $400 in the channel for X.

Now think of this new retail model.

Both A and X sell for $100.  Intel gets $60 and the channel gets $40. Now consider the  "upgrade" of locked X to unlocked X.  Intel gets $900 and the channel gets zero.

BLXXDY MARVELOUS financial concept by Intel. Cost is the same to the end-user (assuming fair pricing) but Intel gets a larger slice.

And I do agree with Intel charging a bit more than the "fair" price... since the user has an "option" and an "option", which has an intrinsic benefit, should come with some associated cost/price. Hence Intel sells the processor plus sells an option plus takes more of the margin. Well done Intel.

It is also beneficial to system builders and end-corporate purchasers. They dont need to design, build or market hundreds of processor editions. Just one. Then as the client determines, just "upgrade" the relevant machines. Example: Big multinational buys 10,000 computers.  Once in place, the manager of the department can determine who gets the upgraded processor. Clearly MS Office users dont need it, e.g. secretaries and support staff, but some do.  The decision becomes "local" based on "need" rather than having to be predetermined Communist style.


----------



## qubit (Nov 15, 2010)

Wile E said:


> It's not a ripoff unless they price gouge for the unlock. We can't judge it's value without knowing the costs, now can we?



This point has been discussed from lots of angles on this thread and the general consensus is that it's a rippoff, even without hard numbers and I happen to agree with it.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 15, 2010)

qubit said:


> This point has been discussed from lots of angles on this thread and the general consensus is that it's a rippoff, even without hard numbers and I happen to agree with it.



Consensus =/= truth or fact.

How is it a ripoff? If the cpu costs $100 up front, and later down the road, you pay $25 and you get the performance of a $120 cpu, that sounds like a good deal to me, especially if you can't afford the $120 cpu up front. You paid $5 for the convenience of not having to sell your cpu and buy a new one. That sounds like the exact opposite of a ripoff to me.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Nov 15, 2010)

This really isn't bad thing for anyone. Instead of buying completely new CPU someone is gonna get a little upgrade easily. You can still buy what you want immediately if you wish so. Intel is happy, the guy getting easy upgrade is happy. Win-win.

e: And I would gladly pay a little to up multiplier on the 920 to same as it is in 950. Sadly I would have to get completely new CPU now so that really isn't worth it.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 15, 2010)

Wile E said:


> It's not a ripoff unless they price gouge for the unlock. We can't judge it's value without knowing the costs, now can we?



Its $50, or at least that is what Best Buy was selling them for. And if you look at it compared to what the $50 gets you up front, it is a rip-off.  Basically it is unlocking to an i3-520(if it existsed) since the clock speed would be 2.8GHz.  But for only $15 more up front, you could just go with an i3-540.

But if you look at the cost for the average consumer to upgrade their processor, someone that isn't going to be doing it themselves, it makes sense.  Because Geek Squad charges ~$50 just to open the machine up and swap the processor on top of the cost of the new processor.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 15, 2010)

Have you guys thought about laptops? GREAT for them too


----------



## [Ion] (Nov 15, 2010)

Next up?  A program to unlock hyperthreading on Lynnfield i5s?  Would be interested in that


----------



## Wile E (Nov 15, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Its $50, or at least that is what Best Buy was selling them for. And if you look at it compared to what the $50 gets you up front, it is a rip-off.  Basically it is unlocking to an i3-520(if it existsed) since the clock speed would be 2.8GHz.  But for only $15 more up front, you could just go with an i3-540.
> 
> But if you look at the cost for the average consumer to upgrade their processor, someone that isn't going to be doing it themselves, it makes sense.  Because Geek Squad charges ~$50 just to open the machine up and swap the processor on top of the cost of the new processor.



See, I think that pricing is a bit high, so it does kinda fall into ripoff territory to me.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 15, 2010)

Wile E said:


> See, I think that pricing is a bit high, so it does kinda fall into ripoff territory to me.



I thought so at first too, but once I started looking at the cost for a normal consumer to have a CPU upgraded in a PC, I don't think it really is.  Maybe a little on the high side, but not a rip-off.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Nov 15, 2010)

Intel need to integrate this upgrade into STEAM. New game download incl. CPU upgrade. Nice.


----------



## qubit (Nov 15, 2010)

Wile E said:


> Consensus =/= truth or fact.
> 
> How is it a ripoff? If the cpu costs $100 up front, and later down the road, you pay $25 and you get the performance of a $120 cpu, that sounds like a good deal to me, especially if you can't afford the $120 cpu up front. You paid $5 for the convenience of not having to sell your cpu and buy a new one. That sounds like the exact opposite of a ripoff to me.



I thought you'd make the consensus/truth argument.  However, this thing is new and hasn't taken over the market at this point, so all we have are a few facts and lots and lots of opinion extrapolating this up further. And makes for a great thread, no? 

NT's first response described a good scenario where Intel can price gouge this one and I'm 100% sure they will, for all its worth.

Anyway for me, it's not just about the price: it just feels wrong. Basically, Intel is holding the processor that you paid for to ransom for more money, which doesn't seem right to me.

I think also that it could lead to stagnation in new hardware with genuine performance improvements held back by this. You can just see Intel and AMD "competing" in the marketplace by incrementally enabling more performance in their current chips until they are fully unlocked and only then making new designs. Sounds like it would stifle real competition and innovation, doesn't it?

Nah, it's one thing to speed bin chips and permanently disable parts of them to make useable lower grades and quite another to intentionally cripple them for more money. Think about it, using Intel's new strategy, what happens to the slightly defective chips that could have lived life as a lower grade CPU with less cache or something? They would get discarded and we all end up paying higher prices so that Intel can make a profit in only selling fully functional, but "locked" CPUs.

And finally, as I suggested before, there have been lots of angles discussed on this thread and I think it's well worth reading them and not just taking the narrow view of price into consideration.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Nov 16, 2010)

If you pay $50 to upgrade your cpu to the capability of a cpu that cost $50 more than you paid you for yours then I'm sort of okay with that. Where this bugs me is if you need to keep the card in all the time, wasting a slot.


----------



## qubit (Nov 16, 2010)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> If you pay $50 to upgrade your cpu to the capability of a cpu that cost $50 more than you paid you for yours then I'm sort of okay with that. *Where this bugs me is if you need to keep the card in all the time, wasting a slot.*



What card? This is a one-time unlock.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 17, 2010)

qubit said:


> I thought you'd make the consensus/truth argument.  However, this thing is new and hasn't taken over the market at this point, so all we have are a few facts and lots and lots of opinion extrapolating this up further. And makes for a great thread, no?
> 
> NT's first response described a good scenario where Intel can price gouge this one and I'm 100% sure they will, for all its worth.
> 
> ...


Except, as has been pointed out time and time again, binning is not the only time they disable parts of chips. They disable parts of chips just to meat market demand most of the time. This will not stifle innovation at all. They still develop the highest speed parts first, then take all the lower speed parts from it. 

They haven't changed anything at all, they have always intentionally crippled parts. Both AMD and Intel (and IBM, and nVidia, and ATI, and Matrox, etc., etc.) have done this from day one. Everybody seems to be missing this point. That point completely nullifies the anti-crippling argument. The only difference here is, Intel now gives the customer the choice to unlock, if they see fit.

If you don't unlock it, you still paid the proper price for the performance level of the chip. You got *exactly* what you paid for. You have not been ripped off in any way, shape or form. They are not obligated to give you a better performing part for less money.

All that said, I think the unlock costs too much for the performance boost.

And price and value are the only arguments that have had any merit in this thread.


----------



## qubit (Nov 19, 2010)

Wile E said:


> Except, as has been pointed out time and time again, binning is not the only time they disable parts of chips. They disable parts of chips just to meat market demand most of the time. This will not stifle innovation at all. They still develop the highest speed parts first, then take all the lower speed parts from it.
> 
> They haven't changed anything at all, they have always intentionally crippled parts. Both AMD and Intel (and IBM, and nVidia, and ATI, and Matrox, etc., etc.) have done this from day one. Everybody seems to be missing this point. That point completely nullifies the anti-crippling argument. The only difference here is, Intel now gives the customer the choice to unlock, if they see fit.
> 
> ...



Exactly, the bit in bold is what we're protesting about! Disabling bits and flogging them back to you seems inherently wrong to me. However, disabling bits and then you find an unofficial unlock that may or may not work is fine.

Ultimately, I think this new practice is a bit of a grey area and there are lots of valid angles, including yours.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 19, 2010)

qubit said:


> Basically, Intel is holding the processor that you paid for to ransom for more money, which doesn't seem right to me.



Not really, because you didn't pay for it.  You paid for a G6951, and that is what you get.  They aren't holding anything you've paid for away from you.



qubit said:


> I think also that it could lead to stagnation in new hardware with genuine performance improvements held back by this. You can just see Intel and AMD "competing" in the marketplace by incrementally enabling more performance in their current chips until they are fully unlocked and only then making new designs. Sounds like it would stifle real competition and innovation, doesn't it?



They already do this.  They release lower clocked  chips at first, then just up the multipliers as time goes on to release "new" skus to keep the market moving while they develope truly new tech.



qubit said:


> Nah, it's one thing to speed bin chips and permanently disable parts of them to make useable lower grades and quite another to intentionally cripple them for more money.



You assume they are crippling chips that wouldn't normally be crippled anyway.  As I said, the most likely senario is that they are rebinning G6950 chips, and any that pass the L3 test get labelled G6951 and can be unlocked by the customer if they wish.  So if they didn't give the option to unlock the chips, these chips would most likely have been crippled permanantly anyway simply because they didn't bin well in their first binning.


----------



## qubit (Nov 19, 2010)

@NT: None of your arguments are unreasonable, but it just doesn't feel right to me and a lot of others.

As I said to Wile E, this is a grey area and I think the best decider of whether this is good or bad, will be if it takes off and we see the actual results of this marketing strategy.


----------

