Because they simply disabled chips where parts of it were allegedly unuseable and didn't try to cash in on "unlocking" them.
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.
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.
+ 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.
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.
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...
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?
It would really be great to see webshow feat. intels nuisance-chip-upgrade aint that sweet after all.
I thought you have to keep The Code software renders for you after inputting The Key you bought from official reseller
