Intel Wants $50 for Software Unlock of CPU Features

[Kreij]

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

 

[qubit]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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_Two]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

+ 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[pantherx12]

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.

 

[Steve-007UK]

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]

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]

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]

read the thread face palmed.

 

[Black Hades]

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]

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.