Monday, September 20th 2010
Intel Wants $50 for Software Unlock of CPU Features
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.
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.
160 Comments on Intel Wants $50 for Software Unlock of CPU Features
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.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.How you could not see this as what has already been going on for years I don't understand.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?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?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.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.
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
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).
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.:ohwell:
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.
Believe what you want man, I'm done :laugh:
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.
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.
[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:laugh:
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.
AMD FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!Nope, sounds like the kind of cheap move they would pull. You will obviously have a disclaimer to accept before your CPU is unlocked :(
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.
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.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.
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. :(
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.
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?