How lame is this?

[ElNono]

Intel charging $50 to unlock extra processor features

[leemajors]

I just read that, incredibly lame. I read it on boing boing, which had disturbing quotes:

I remember the first time someone from the studios put this position to me. It was a rep from the MPAA at a DRM standards meeting, and that was just the example he used. He said: "When you buy a movie to watch in your living room, we're only selling you the right to see it in your living room. Sending the same show upstairs to watch in your bedroom has value, and if it has value, we should be able to charge money for it."

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/09/19...-crippled.html

AMD should take this and run the other way with it.

[CubanMustGo]

Whenever someone goes around singing the praises of the DCMA, hold on to your wallet.

[Wild Cobra]

Nothing new here except the ability to unlock the features.

This has been the commonplace in processors and memory for years.

When it comes to memory, you don't make 800mhz memory and 1066 mhz memory. It's all the same. Some of the determining factors get complicated, but often, due to expected demand for different price and performance, they downgrade a rating. You might be buying 800 mhz memory that works fine at 1066mhz. That is, if there isn't a sense line that tells the system what speed to use. I don't know all the technical details, just that more often than not, far more faster memory is made than can be sold at the higher end price.

now when it comes to CPU's, Intel has been doing this for as long as I know of. I used to be professionally involved with Intel from 1994 to 1998. They would make a full feature processor then test them. The best ones would get marked with the highest speeds and full features. Once they had the ratio of top qualifiers, the others would be downgraded. CPU would be marked with slower clock speeds. Coprocessor units and cache would be snipped out by blowing a fusible link on the chip. All they did today, was made them deactivated in firmware and capable of reactivating it.

Cry all you want. If you want the full features, you simply pay more. Nothing new or unethical here, except they made the surgery reversible.

[Wild Cobra]

I just read that, incredibly lame. I read it on boing boing, which had disturbing quotes:



http://www.boingboing.net/2010/09/19...-crippled.html

AMD should take this and run the other way with it.

AMD probably disables chips also. Their chips might not be reversible though.

[Wild Cobra]

If you have two different cache sizes, it's simple. In the end, it's cheaper to print on silicon all the same chips, then customize them during the electrical testing.

The more features/performance, etc. the more they charge.

You still get what you pay for. Why cry about it?

[Dex]

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/09/19...-crippled.html

Wow, that's got to be one of the most re ed, capitalistic examples I have ever read. When I pay good money for a movie, I expect to be able to watch it where I want, when I want, and however many times I want to. It's bad enough you have to s our thirteen bucks to see it once in the theatre, and another eighteen if you want your own copy. Now they want to charge you for watching it on different TVs?

[resistanze]

I read this on Engadget. LMAO Intel.

Hackers gonna hack.

[Wild Cobra]

I read this on Engadget. LMAO Intel.

Hackers gonna hack.

That may not be so easy.

I'll bet each CPU has it's own key that needs to be activated. Not like one key will fit all.

From what I know of Intel, they wouldn't allow an externally activated feature to exist if it wasn't hacker-proof.

Did you know each CPU has a unique serial number embedded on the chip? I'll bet the process requires the system be online to activate it. the Intel server likely reads the CPU serial number, has a list of keys, and then unlocks it. I'll bet no two keys are the same.

[leemajors]

Nothing new here except the ability to unlock the features.

This has been the commonplace in processors and memory for years.

When it comes to memory, you don't make 800mhz memory and 1066 mhz memory. It's all the same. Some of the determining factors get complicated, but often, due to expected demand for different price and performance, they downgrade a rating. You might be buying 800 mhz memory that works fine at 1066mhz. That is, if there isn't a sense line that tells the system what speed to use. I don't know all the technical details, just that more often than not, far more faster memory is made than can be sold at the higher end price.

now when it comes to CPU's, Intel has been doing this for as long as I know of. I used to be professionally involved with Intel from 1994 to 1998. They would make a full feature processor then test them. The best ones would get marked with the highest speeds and full features. Once they had the ratio of top qualifiers, the others would be downgraded. CPU would be marked with slower clock speeds. Coprocessor units and cache would be snipped out by blowing a fusible link on the chip. All they did today, was made them deactivated in firmware and capable of reactivating it.

Cry all you want. If you want the full features, you simply pay more. Nothing new or unethical here, except they made the surgery reversible.

Going back and disabling hyperthreading on new models when it has been available in the past is lame.

[Wild Cobra]

Going back and disabling hyperthreading on new models when it has been available in the past is lame.

Look.

It's easier for them to make one mold instead of several. If they were all the same, they couldn't have different price structures.

[mouse]

This is like God starting to charge us for sperm we waste during masturbation.

[Wild Cobra]

This is like God starting to charge us for sperm we waste during masturbation.

Would you rather they charge top dollar for all CPU's because they were all configured fully?

You see, not everyone will pay top prices and they would have less sales. You sell a lesser product for less, and the people who are limited to that cost will buy them. there is nothing wrong with this strategy, except for those of you with the en lement mentality. I'll bet your take is the top of the line processors should sell for the price of the cheapest ones, right?

Shouldn't you get what you pay for?

[mouse]

Shouldn't you get what you pay for?

I am all for someone getting paid for what they know or what they can provide. I charge people 25-50 dollars for a Logo and they could do it themsleves it cost me only 20 minutes of my time the software does all the work.

The chip and CPU people can make all the money they want and do as they wish but it's kinda like the AC repairman fixing your air conditioner and he knows if he turns a certain screw on the compressor you can get cooler air but he wants 50 dollars to do it, to me Its borderline chicken but I am not against him making money I just point out how it looks.

[Wild Cobra]

it's kinda like the AC repairman fixing your air conditioner and he knows if he turns a certain screw on the compressor you can get cooler air but he wants 50 dollars to do it, to me Its borderline chicken but I am not against him making money I just point out how it looks.

Whatever.

If this marketing strategy didn't work, they wouldn't do it. nobody's being cheated. they don't have a monopoly on the market. AMD gives them good compe ion to keep prices down.

Other than this marketing style insulting those of you with the en lement mentality, what is wrong with it?

Are you not getting what you pay for?

You know...

The Lancer Evoution is much the same. You buy it and get a car that pushes maybe 330 HP. If you go in their with a chip programmer, you can get I think around 450 HP without making any other changes.

[BlairForceDejuan]

The ones that would want hardcore performance are already spending hundreds of dollars on watercooling setups to overclock hardware anyways.

[ElNono]

Nothing new here except the ability to unlock the features.

This has been the commonplace in processors and memory for years.

When it comes to memory, you don't make 800mhz memory and 1066 mhz memory. It's all the same. Some of the determining factors get complicated, but often, due to expected demand for different price and performance, they downgrade a rating. You might be buying 800 mhz memory that works fine at 1066mhz. That is, if there isn't a sense line that tells the system what speed to use. I don't know all the technical details, just that more often than not, far more faster memory is made than can be sold at the higher end price.

now when it comes to CPU's, Intel has been doing this for as long as I know of. I used to be professionally involved with Intel from 1994 to 1998. They would make a full feature processor then test them. The best ones would get marked with the highest speeds and full features. Once they had the ratio of top qualifiers, the others would be downgraded. CPU would be marked with slower clock speeds. Coprocessor units and cache would be snipped out by blowing a fusible link on the chip. All they did today, was made them deactivated in firmware and capable of reactivating it.

Cry all you want. If you want the full features, you simply pay more. Nothing new or unethical here, except they made the surgery reversible.

This is not binning...This is purposeful locking of features. Very different.

[ElNono]

Would you rather they charge top dollar for all CPU's because they were all configured fully?

You see, not everyone will pay top prices and they would have less sales. You sell a lesser product for less, and the people who are limited to that cost will buy them. there is nothing wrong with this strategy, except for those of you with the en lement mentality. I'll bet your take is the top of the line processors should sell for the price of the cheapest ones, right?

Shouldn't you get what you pay for?

Your comments are re ed (nothing new there).

They already have multiple-tier pricing for different processors. You already can pay different prices for different features.

This is basically purposely crippling a processor by software in order to double-dip. Lame and silly.

And BTW, this is entirely hackable. The question is merely how much are they going to be charging for these artificial 'upgrades'. Once it makes it worth using a SEM, it will be hacked.

[ElNono]

The ones that would want hardcore performance are already spending hundreds of dollars on watercooling setups to overclock hardware anyways.

The cache and hyperthreading upgrades are basically negligible. Probably why they charge such a minuscule amount. Fact is, this is a processor that should have had those features enabled from the get go.

[ElNono]

If this marketing strategy didn't work, they wouldn't do it.

I suspect this is actually testing the waters.

[Wild Cobra]

This is not binning...This is purposeful locking of features. Very different.

call it what you will. I don't care, and i don't have a problem with the practice. If they couldn't make it soft key upgradable, they would permanently disable the CPU's with fusible internal links and force you to buy a new one at full cost.

Get a grip and think of the realities involved. this is better than the alternative.

[ElNono]

call it what you will. I don't care, and i don't have a problem with the practice.

I can tell you're talking out of your ass and don't even know what CPU binning is. Which really tells me that your 'professional involvement' with Intel from 94-98 had nothing to do with chip design and manufacturing.

If they couldn't make it soft key upgradable, they would permanently disable the CPU's with fusible internal links and force you to buy a new one at full cost.

The only reason they would do that is if the portion they're locking out by hardware is verified defective or didn't pass their internal tests.

Get a grip and think of the realities involved. this is better than the alternative.

The alternative being paying just once for everything a CPU can do? I'll take the alternative every single time.

[Cry Havoc]

call it what you will. I don't care, and i don't have a problem with the practice.

WC, as usual, bringing his uneducated opinion and trotting it out for everyone to lulz at.

And at WC trying to prove he knows more than ElNono on the subject.

[Wild Cobra]

I can tell you're talking out of your ass and don't even know what CPU binning is. Which really tells me that your 'professional involvement' with Intel from 94-98 had nothing to do with chip design and manufacturing.

I understand binning. You see, Intels quality control is really good. They have more top spec CPU's than they can sell at top price, so they mark and market some as a lower class than they test as. In the case of CPU's with coprocessors, they would often disable a coprocessor and bin the unit as one without a coprocessor. Same holds true with cache. In the past, they relied on burning an internal link to disable the feature permanently. Now they made it a marketable feature, unlocking it with a key.

The only reason they would do that is if the portion they're locking out by hardware is verified defective or didn't pass their internal tests.

Wrong. Supply and demand. If they held for sales all that passed the highest tests, they would have too many for that class of chip, and the price falls. They would also have a shortage of the cheaper chips. Better to shoot for the best ratings and degrade some than have a shortage of chips some consumers want, and an overage of others you cannot sell.

If their supply was solely based by testing, the supply would be inconsistent.

The alternative being paying just once for everything a CPU can do? I'll take the alternative every single time.

Yes, cheaper for consumers, less profit for Intel.

You are right that I don't know the latest practices for a certainty, but you can bank on the fact that they still use a similar practice today as what I described.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, as usual, bringing his uneducated opinion and trotting it out for everyone to lulz at.

And at WC trying to prove he knows more than ElNono on the subject.

I did work at two different angles in the semicondictor industry. Four years with an equipment manufacturer and working with Intel people, and another four years working for a Chip maker.

ElNono is wrong, and so are you.