Slashdot Mirror
Intel Wants To Charge $50 To Unlock Your CPU's Full Capabilities
MBCook writes "Turnkey CPU upgrades aren't just for mainframes anymore. According to Engadget, OEMs (including Gateway) are selling computers with the Intel Pentium G6951, which can have extra cache and hyper-threading enabled through a $50 software unlock called Intel Upgrade Service."
Especially since it'll likely be pirated before the CPU ships.
Crack coming out in 3...2...1...
on the date of the first crack to unlock it without paying the fee.
but if it does, it's a big opportunity for AMD. Of course, odds are it'll get cracked at some point and we'll be able to grab an "Intel Upgrade Service Crack" torrent.
Presumably Intel will be using the CPU serial number to keep track of legitimate users and so forth. But here it comes: have we bought a central processing unit which has now become our property because we paid for it, or are we simply buying a "license" to use Intel's "intellectual property"? If I go out and buy a penknife, I don't expect to have to pay more money if I want to be able to use the built-in compass. Will the BSA (or some similar organization) come down on companies that unlock their processors without paying Intel's upgrade fee? This has the potential to get ugly.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Can you hear that?
That's the sound of so many informed geeks switching to AMD.
I believe that HP/Agilent was the first company to do this. They would manufacture something with gobs of RAM and then charge you extra money to enable the 'option' that was already present. It costs less for a manufacturer to produce a single version of their product than for multiple versions with different capabilities. Intel realizes this but their marketing people are full of shit (just like HP's were). They didn't lose any money when they sold you the processor. The software unlock is 100% pure profit. It's really annoying to know that you have paid for and posses capability that you cannot use.
Didnt they do this with the old ibm printers during the 70's and early 80's? But then everyone learned to hack them.
This is so ridiculous (and should be illegal)... And I tought we had control of our PC hardware, I guess in future PC hardware and architecture will be closed like game consoles are now. Also, I have read that they only unlock extra cache that was already there but showed some problem. So they are selling 'unlock cards' to unlock defective cache? Sounds good.
And Engadget seems to support it, at least their post make sound they do, corporate drones...
Seriously. Write off any and all vendors who do this. And if Intel is actively supporting the practice, right them off as well.
Price per watt and cpuc cycle be damned, if I'm buying a business model crippled cpu from the get go.
Intel. This is your 1 warning.
It would be relatively simple for the BIOS to turn off CPU features in such a way that they can't be turned back on without a reset. So the easy way to implement this would be for Intel to partner with a PC vendor and charge for the BIOS upgrade that doesn't disable the CPU features in question. With such a system, it would mean that you could pull the CPU and put it in a different motherboard, and get all the features, but that's not going to be a concern for the business model until they're talking about hundreds of dollars for the added features.
Putting this into the CPU would require that the CPUs be designed specifically to support this, which is not as likely to be the case, but would be much more difficult to defeat.
So I went to buy a laptop from bestbuy and this dude from the geeksquad told me they could make my cpu go 18% faster. I was baffled, I asked him, "so you're saying i'm buying a cpu that's 18% slower than what it says on the specs?". After giving him sarcastic replies for like 3mins, he finally told me they didn't have that system in stock, lol. The asshole probably wanted to sell that shit to some unsuspecting mom. Fuck the geeksquad.
did you forget to take your meds?
(to the tune of the Intel commercial):
Bum-bum-bum-bum!
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Probably cheaper to produce and cheaper to buy, at least for the end user who knows his way around the interwebs. So everybody wins.
IBM has been doing this in with mainframes for a while. As long as you sell these to businesses with lawyers who will flip out if they hear of IT breaking contracts, Intel should be fine, too.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
This model works fine for large business servers where downtime is expensive -- unlock the resources when you grow -- but the audacity of doing this on the x86 platform is fail.
I wonder if the Intel Fanboys have udders, because Intel sure is trying to milk them.
This seems to remind me of the practice of manufacturing one line of product due to the economies of scale but then intentionally disabling functionality in order to be able to market a broader line of products. Maybe instead of physically and permanently disabling that functionality it would be more economical to sell them in all cases as the lower end product with an available upgrade to the higher end product?
I agree that if there is a way to enable the functionality in software that it is only a matter of time before someone figures out how to crack it rendering the concept moot.
As long as I get a $50 break on a new CPU!
Seriously, if you get less you should pay for less. They'd still be competing with their other chips (and AMD's).. so it's not like you shouldn't get what you pay for.
That being said, this is like Intel creating a similar avenue as overclocking.. getting more performance from a cheaper chip. I'd really be tempted to get a crippled / cheaper CPU and just crack it to get the full-price speed.
i don't really understand...
a software update for, lets say, iphone, makes sense you ask some cash for it, it has been extra work to make that software update
for hardware?? you made the whole thing already, if it is able to do that, why not sell it at the full price imidiatly?
to me it seems... if you sell it at a lower price and hope for some to pay for it, you are giving something which you deem to have a higher value, but just aren't giving the full potential. if it has all the options, why not sell it with all options for the full price?
its not as if there is any way to actually earn more by selling it for less then you deem it worth and have few people actually pay for the extra value.
they already need to check if everything on it is working, because they can't offer an upgrade if it might not work hardware like, so its not as if they are asking extra for the broken chips... its just weird.
IBM's been doing that sort of thing for years. They ship you a mainframe with more processors than you ordered or a disk array with more disk than you ordered, and you can pay them to turn it on.
Yes, but I'm pretty sure that's all predicated on IBM service contracts and/or the license on the IBM OS/application software running on the system.
If you're running a completely-FOSS debian install on top of these new Intel processors, what leverage do they have on you?
coding is life
Don't let the marketing get to you, and do not encourage it.
If you are shopping for processors, simply disregard the "upgrades" and treat the product accordingly. Does it compare with fully unlocked competitors?
No? Then don't buy it. Yes? Then buy it but don't upgrade.
I'm getting so fucking tired of companies creating ways to further nickel and dime.
There's no chance this coupon is going to bring down the price of a computer by $50 to correspond to the loss of features, this is just another way to make some coin after the fact.
We never end up saving money, it's all bullshit.
Isn't this how MS Windows works since a couple of versions ago?
...are we scared yet?
I think the possibility of a crack is irrelevant.
Maybe this is just an extension of the normal binning any semiconductor process produces and a demonstration that at this particular tick/tock point the yields are excellent.
More likely though is that CPU performance has become so complicated to predict, and so often irrelevant to many classes of users, that this is intels best guess at how to upsell CPU's to users who have no idea how different CPUs perform.
Some people pay for good reason, Some people buy intel instead of AMD because a crack means they can "get something for nothing" but mostly imagine all the people getting frustrated with some poorly written piece of software and thinking "50$ .. worth a try" .
It's hard out there for a pimp, when pimping cpu's to farmville players.
This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
After reading this I can't help but be a little more satisfied with my cheap as hell AMD 9600 Black Edition I got off TigerDirect just yesterday for 70 bucks or so, less from the bundle discount.
I know AMD does the same sort of thing in terms of locking SOME models, but this cheap 2.3ghz quad core I picked up that came totally unlocked is great and I hope we as consumers can continue to support products that truly serve us better instead of just being the flashiest at this moment.
How to address it? It's quite simple for anyone outside of maybe a few cutting-edge scenarios. Don't buy it, let the inventory pile up and the competitors catch up. Buy the next closest model that doesn't have the psycho-DRM or rapacious "services", and if all the models have that then buy from another company, its that simple. To some extent brand-fanboys have themselves to blame for encouraging this kind of blatant abuse that comes when companies gain this kind of sway over a market segment.
Wouldn't Intel benefit from embracing it's customers and just allowing this to be done?
Maybe, but embracing this would benefit Intel's stockholders even more.
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
Think of this service as customers who need those full capabilities subsidizing the customers who don't need them.
Whether Intel produces chips with or without these extra features it costs them the same, though it costs them more to design the features initially. This means that giving the features to everyone has to raise the price for everyone, even those who don't need the extra features.
I know making money is evil, but let's try to take a balanced view of this.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
How come the software to "unlock" this capability appears to be windows only?
da w00t. mtfnpy?
If Intel says "you're getting system X for 2000 USD" and that's what you get, I don't see the problem.
If Intel says "you're getting system X for 2000 USD"...."but now that you've paid us 2000 USD you have to pay 50 USD more to use system X" that seems like its a pretty nasty swindle.
Given Intel's past actions, they'll probably walk the latter route.
Grrrr....I can feel the nerd rage building...must...punch....pillow...!!! Seriously, this is pure nickle-and-diming of the consumer. Fuck the moron in Marketing that grunted out this steaming pile of idiocy, I prefer a nice black-and-white binning model with related price points to this micro-purchase crap. This is so asinine that I'm sorely tempted to take a serious second look at AMD. Note to Intel: WT-effing-F???
They wouldn't have sold the crippled CPU to you if $200 wasn't a fair price for at least the full quad-core CPU, since that's what they had to manufacture. Whether you keep it as single-core, or pay extra for the upgrade, you are with absolute certainty being ripped off.
"Currently, CPU upgrades are available on selected Windows 7 systems."
It installs the application. Does it run every time your computer boots? Does that mean the unlock isn't permanent? If I pay to unlock the chip, and then reboot into Linux, is the CPU still unlocked? If I have to reinstall Windows, do I have to reinstall (or re-purchase) the upgrade?
No thanks...
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
https://retailupgrades.intel.com/Page.aspx?Name=WhereToBuy
Unlock codes aren't copyrightable, so wait until the required code is reverse-engineered
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
https://retailupgrades.intel.com/Page.aspx?Name=WhereToBuy
Is this some kind of flash update or os based?
So will it be $50 per os reload?
Will you be able to buy it one time and make a image and mass deploy it?
Will Linux just auto unlock the cpu?
Will some MB auto unlock the cpu?
If it's a software upgrade, what OS does it require?
Really paranoid vision, or is it merely realistic... what if the the upgrade requires Windows not only to activate, but handshakes with the OS on bootup? Would the upgrade only work under Windows?
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Not only is this a good thing, it's an evolution of something that's brought down computer prices for decades.
Remember binning? It's been around for ages. It's the simple process of, in this case, Intel trying to manufacturer a really fast processor. Then testing the processor, and finding out that 40% of the transistors failed. And then selling the processor as a lower-end model. Hard drives do this too. Try to make a 1TB HDD, fail, and sell the working 500GB as a 500GB HDD. The alternative is to have multiple fabrication lines, and a whole lot of waste. Even florists do this -- selling a box of rose petals that were ultimately taken from wilting roses that coludn't get sold as fresh flowers.
In this particular case, selling the unlock is the solution to the new problem -- there is less manufacturing defects. So what would you have Intel do? Actually create a line that produces low-end products? Or intentionally break high-end products? Or stop selling low-end processors because it simply isn't profitable to do so?
This is the perfect solution. For everyone. Intel has tehir on eline making their high-end processor. You get to pay less and get less. Business as usual. Only now, you can change your mind after-the-fact -- that's time-travel baby! And maybe some of those low-end sales get converted into high-end sales so Intel can actually get paid for the high-end product that you are holding.
So, as usual, quit complaining about other people's businesses. Buy the products you want, from the companies you like, and don't buy the rest. Instead, use your money to start your own business, and learn why others do what they do. Be the same, or be different. But be something more than a consumer, and you'll understand why you shouldn't be upset all the time.
I tought I taw a putty tat.
What if you could buy a code that unlocks your CPU's multiplier? Instead of buying a special K-model CPU with the multiplier unlocked at a $100 premium, you can buy the normal processor and then unlock it later if you want. Or you can get a cheaper code that unlocks the multiplier within a certain range, allowing for some but not extreme overclockability.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
I was planning to get an AMD phenom II 3.4ghz quad core, with 4 1gb ddr3 ram sticks to its motherboard, and for around $425-450.
Intel, while you do make things seem shiny, you are just too expensive for me. You have lost the game.
The summary says something about special software to unlock the extra cores etc.
However, everybody knows that special software doesn't run on all operating systems. You see this kind of thing with BIOS-flashing tools.
So if I hypothetically get a machine with a crippled CPU like this and I wanted the full deal, would I have to install windows, download the special software, run it, and then wipe windows to return to my main OS?
It sounds cumbersome.
Salesman: Thank you sir. Thats all the paperwork. Here are the keys to your brand new Toyota Camry. Oh wait, there's just one more caveat. We'll need you to pay the "accelerator calibration" fee
Joe: Nah, i'll take my chances.
The rest is history...
I have the same opinion about WEP networks. Thing is, even if Ubuntu doesn't, Mint doesn't give a ****, their OS is already illegal, why not?
I'm asking about this on #ubuntu, there's gotta be somebody out there with this chip and maybe somebody else with a microscope..
I'm a bit surprised everyone is going nuts over this. Intel has been doing this almost since the start. The only difference is instead of paying for the difference upfront here you get the chance to "upgrade" if it proves useful later.
This is an example of price discrimination. Apple basically does the same thing with all their hardware when they offer iphones/ipods/ipads with different hard drive sizes. For example, "NAND flash chips on 16GB, 32GB, and 64GB iPads cost $29.50, $59, and $118, respectively". This means they're making an additional $70 and $82 profit on the higher priced items. I guess it's not as blatant as Intel but it's essentially the same strategy.
the law also says you can jailbreak stuff what does the BSA and others think about that?
What if Intel had a cpu that only booted windows but for $50 you can unlock any os?
...shame if anything should "happen" to it...
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
What if Intel had a cpu that only booted windows but for $50 you can unlock any os?
I'm sure they'll try something like that as soon as they can figure out how to get away with it. The problems would be more legal than technical, but as anyone knows a liberal application of funds to the proper politician can resolve such issues very cost effectively.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I think it's fairly obvious the primary target of this would be OEMs, who can now sell one unit either as an e.g. 2.8GHz desktop or as a 3.0GHz desktop with the same hardware. Less development cost, fewer very slightly different models they have to deal with, etc...
Like most such stories, people react based on emotion without any real thought. It's both hilarious and sad at the same time.
Crack coming out in 3...
Oh, there it is.
the law also says you can jailbreak stuff what does the BSA and others think about that?
Sorry, but thats not right. The law is very exact in how its phrased, being "bypassing a manufacturer's protection mechanisms to allow "handsets to execute software applications" is permissible". This is what makes sure things like modchips and modding consoles is still illegal. Only effect handsets aka cellphones/smartphones.
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
they are determined to hand AMD a PR club they can use to beat Intel about the head.
I can just see the ad bylines now, "Why pay extra to have the IQ of your microprocessor raised to average, when you can get one with a higher IQ with no additional hidden costs?"
This is purely a marketing ploy to see if they can sucker consumers into accepting, so that can generate an additional profit line.
...and now we'll be having hardware subscriptions, too? Lovely.
We've done a pretty good job so far of putting the kibosh on software subscriptions (short of so-called Web apps, subscriptions in disguise); are we going to be as lucky with this one, with Intel's monopolistic weight behind it?
My first impression was "whoa - Gateway is still in business."
After that though, yeah. Dumb idea all the way around. They're going to get such a roasting over this. Viral Youtube videos, blog crusaders polluting every tech forum and newsgroup with this one issue, the full Tonight Show treatment. The hate that this spawns will be worth far less than all the money it could possibly bring in.
And then of course comes the question: if ideas this bad come to market, who's running the ship up there? And then the stock takes a hit.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Hey, why don't we just add $50 to the price of the processor, and skip the whole upgrade idea all together?
I mean honestly, how many folks would really rather by a 'Celeron' type processor when for $50 more they can get the real deal, and not the disabled one?
Think of all the money Intel would save on marketing alone, by just having one new line instead of two! Hey, can I have 10% of the marketing budget I just saved Intel? I suspect I could retire really early.
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
Get your new Genuine Intel Disadvantage built in! Sounds like a great marketing strategy to let competitors brand their processors as genuinely, intentionally "brain dead".
"It's a really nice car. Great mileage, never driven except test drives. A real beaut."
"You can't afford the sticker you say?"
The dealer takes out a baseball bat. *Crash Smash*
"So with no passenger headlight and mirror, you'll save $200. I could save you $4000 total and still have the car street legal. Or we could repair the mirror and headlight for $400 added. A real value! So we have a deal?"
I hate the cheating concept of downgraded hardware; if it's not a loss-leader, then the re-enabled hardware is overpriced.
Or in filesystems...
You install Windows on a 1000gb hard drive you bought, and Windows only provides you 500gb of usable space. A few years later, when you are running out of space....
Dialog box: "Warning: C: only has 5 gigabytes of space left out of 500gb. You can visit http: upgrade . microsoft .com / morespace
to expand your system storage capacity.... Your storage software is currently: Bronze Edition (limit: 500gb);
you can upgrade to Silver (limit: 750gb) for $99.99 or Gold (limit: 1000gb) for $199.99.
Or platinum for $299.99 to allow you to add a second hard drive to your computer"
And then we could have hard drive manufacturers sell 1TB hard drives that can be upgraded to 1.5TB or 2TB hard drives by running a program and inputting an activation code from a web site......
Anybody remember the Intel 487sx math coprocessor that was really a complete 486 processor which simply disabled the original 486 processor on the motherboard? Sold like hotcakes it did. Intel at their most ingenious.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Why are all companies nickel and diming their customers lately?
The 70's called, they want their meme's back.
What's next? Pay-per-hour internet?
Pay-per-use computing?
Dumb Terminals?
Pay-per-byte storage?
Oooh, I get it...Bill Gates onces predicted "computers will be free, and people will pay for software"...it's coming true, people will eventually be back to paying per-cpu cycle for the privilege of running software.
Think it won't work? It already works on your "free" cellphones..
Pay-per-use computing, welcome to the future, circa 1970
Wasn't this the idea (roughly) around trusted computing? Are kernel devs going to pay for the signing? Only MS et. al. would and thus kill free software.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Yes GM I would like to unlock the other 4 cylinders on my v8. THHHANKS/
Maybe Intel is using HDCP codes to unlock the processors.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
actually most the removal, while trivial to most /. users, is removing files in msconfig and startup to ensure the unit boots up faster. While the service might not be for everyone, for some it has its place.
Thing is it's all about marketing and the law of supply and demand. Let's say the price that lets them make a profit is $120, but they have two markets - one composed of people who don't care about power and will rather pay $100 for a less powerful version, and one where people will pay $150 for a faster version. If they combine sales from both markets, they will make a profit, but if they had to sell the processors at one price only they would have to charge $120 and lose their "less power" market to competitors. Like many commenters said, it doesn't make sense to them to make two separate products, so they use this trick to make it work.
It's actually kind of like what airlines do - they lose money on the economy passengers, but make enough on first class and business to make up for it. Without economy passengers, though, they would be flying half-empty planes and just plain throwing money away.
The first thing that comes into my mind is that it would be a way they could get a higher profit without the product price would that much, if they had to raising the base price on a CPU 50$ the end price for the CPU would be raised more than 50$. All this is again a way for them to lower costs by producing less different chips.
Between I3, I5, I7, this speed, that speed, this feature, extreme edition, don't they already have enough ways to make money? This just sounds like corporate greed to the finest extent. People buy what computer they want, and they get what they pay for when they buy it. Not even joe User is going to pay $50 after the fact, when that same $50 at the time of purchase could have likely made the difference between .5GHz faster, or even between I3 & I5. This will blow up in their faces.
...is that most users of low-end CPUs won't notice the difference going from 2 threads to 4, or turning on extra cache. They'll just notice their Windows 7 system getting slow, as Windows systems are wont to do, and then pay $50 only to find out that it's still just as slow, because it did nothing for their memory-starved, I/O-bound, single-threaded workload.
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
I'm not entirely sure where the hate and anger is coming from. It's not like Intel is telling you they're giving you a CPU that does one thing, but doesn't. They're telling you, up front, that your CPU delivers the following characteristics, and at a given price. Then, if you want the CPU to do more later, rather than spending over $100 to replace it, you can turn on the features you weren't willing to pay for in the first place, for a much lower fee. How is this bad? Today, you get different performance at different price points. Tomorrow, you continue to get different performance at different price points. I mean, you're not paying to get some random hunk of silicon - you're paying for what it can do for you. I don't see where the bad in this is.
The take-away here is that when I buy an Intel processor, I'm not getting the best performance, I'm not getting the best price, and I'm not getting the the best value. At best, I'll get crippleware. Crippleware sucked and I'm glad it died out of the marketplace back in the late 90s.
Some Intel products open security holes on your system with their defective DRM: http://extendedsubset.com/?p=30 . I just figured they couldn't get competent C programmers after what they did to Randal Schwartz http://www.lightlink.com/spacenka/fors/ . The HDCP leak was yet another example of fail. But now they want to bring this level of quality engineering directly into the CPU? Haha, no thanks guys.
Imagine the APT malware that would be possible if the CPU microcode update protections get busted wide-open like HDCP just did.
Now was it really such a good idea to hand the Elbonian Business Network a way to sell cracks for who-knows-how-many millions of CPUs for $50 each? Congratulations Intel, the black market value of a crack on your microcode just went from $100k to $M++. Did you stop to consider the fact that some of the top supercomputers on the planet are botnets? That's right: the adversary has the computational resources of a state actor and he doesn't even pay his own power bill.
I'm sitting right now within arm's reach of 14 Intel cores I've bought within the last year or two (from Atoms to i7's), never mind the stuff I have a voice in professionally. My next general purpose CPU is coming from AMD.
Links to an error message.
This is not as bad as it looks. In fact, this could be real good for the Customers. This model will allow me to pay less for a machine when I don't need that much performance. If the performace is not meeting my needs, then I may use the upgrade card and increase the life of my machine. I don't see why folks here are making big deal out of it. How is software upgrade different from hardware upgrade? Even Microsoft and Apple do the same where they charge different price for different features and technically charge less for features by disabling some. So I think software and hardware upgrades are analgous. I actually like that Intel is thinking out of the box and trying to do something different. This only means better and more options for the Customer.
This has been overrun by Free Market Advocates (who actually think commodities should be priced centrally and heavily regulated) and AMD fanboys looking to make hay out of the "issue".
I'll leave you dipshits with one final point. Ever see that Simpsons episode where Duff Dry, Duff Ice, Duff, and Duff Lite all come out of the same spigot and get split into the separate bottles? That's somewhat how CPUs work. They all get made in the same damn factory, the same damn silicon, the same investment costs, etc... Sometimes they get binned because a processor will or won't run at this speed or that. Often they just get binned for business reasons.
So you're already paying extra money for the same product from both AMD and Intel. That's why they have processor multiplier locks and other limiters to keep the CPUs differentiated.
I've been using AMD for years so I don't really care. In fact I hope Intel does it and it has a considerable affect on their market share.
Now seriously Intel? Do you really take users for being this kind of a moron? Its easy! If I see something like this I'll simply not buy a computer with an intel chip in it that I have to pay extra money to activate a feature? This is about the same as the cable companies, etc that were trying to experiment with "metered billing" and then now the CEO gets mad because customers threw a pie in his face for treating the customer as if they are really that dumb to consider it! Come on! Seriously! Absolute BS. AMD is STILL making alternate CPU's after all. Hmmm, Intel! *knock knock* are you in there!?
When you try to unlock an extra core or to overclock a processor there is no guarantee it will work. The manufacturer tells you what the specs of the unit are , which is what you paid for, and from then on you are on your own.
Here we are talking about a case where the cpu has features disabled on purpose but guaranteed to work as long as you provide a ransom fee. While I can find some logic in it, they are in fact telling the consumer that they make a good profit already with the price they charge for the "crippled" unit, since they are willing to sell it at that price. Then the extra $$ is the "idiot tax" they will get from some users.
I really hope AMD returns to its early Athlon days so that Intel can be in check. Judging from the previews of their netbook APU (http://www.anandtech.com/show/3933/amds-zacate-apu-performance-update) they might have something to show next year...
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
This is brilliant. Intel's current processors (and those in the foreseeable future) beat the snot out of AMD offerings in performance.
They can further get the low end by offering upgradeable CPUs for bargain prices (to Dell, HP, etc) further putting pressure on AMD's margins, then recoup even higher profits by offering users a upgrade path that directly pays intel.
Intel's yields are ridiculous right now, few of their procs are disabled due to defects, but to offer different market segments options.
Sleep is for the weak.
...if they provide me with a code or utility to disable hyperthreading.
Hyperthreading is killing my VM hosts and new servers do not have the "Disable Hyperthreading" in BIOS.
For most applications where CPU power matters, hyperthreading actually hurts performance, because the scheduler assumes that the hyper cores are real cores, when in fact they are not. A hyperthreaded core is not a full core, and will bottleneck waiting for the bits it doesn't have on the real core. I prefer not even having hyperthreaded cores unless the os and applications are aware that some cores are gimpy hyperthread cores and takes that into account; i.e does not schedule on them, or only schedules tasks that are not actually crippled by dependency on the real cores on the hyper cores.
Try running a database on hyperthreaded cores....it blows chunks. It's better if you just disable them in BIOS.
to see what kind of cpu I had. Built this system myself 4 gb ram, 4 seagate hard drives (actually gets confusing when in fdisk or your favourite equivalent.), yada yada. I went to the computer store I said I needed a motherbord/cpu that didn't have any issues with my flavour of OS. The dude behind the counter said this one will do fine blah blah. My point is I was concerned about the Hard Drives, ram, case, and how many slots were on the motherboard. Nowadays I buy based on the best deal cpu manufacture/ speed doesn't matter to the desktop user / possible occasional gamer. But $50 means I could buy extra ram or Hard Drive space.
The physical difference between your uber cpu and a z80 is half a teaspoon of sand and some subtlety in the arrangement. You don't think you actually paying that much for the physical material in your processor are you? If a cpu manufacturer just sold their top cpu design at it's best configuration with the development costs spread evenly then they would find themselves priced out of the entry level market (sell far less chips and the top ones would end up being far more expensive). All the variations in cpu's are a way to spread those design costs around while not forcing people to pay for what they don't need. What's being proposed here is brilliant in principle, put the extra stuff on the chip (Which doesn't cost them much) and give people the upgrade opportunity, which should be far cheaper for all concerned than stamping out another piece of nearly identical silicon when the customer discovers the new generation of games aren't quite fast enough. My primary concern is that if this is a boot time driver update then Intel's "upgrade" only applies to whatever operating systems they deem fit to support.
How did you get an all cap post past the filter?
I've always wondered how long it would be until you could pirate hardware upgrades.
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
in PIII times intel introduced a "Processor Serial Number", where every cpu is unique. this was later not implemented to to privacy issues (you could be tracked by this number). Micorcode is already updateable to fix some bugs after production, so a unique code added to every cpu is not an issue. But in this sitation to make a hack proof solution they need
-internet acces to store unlock codes on a server (to prevent one code used multiple times)
-Unique identification of the CPU (to prevent that a unlock code from the server is replayed on other cpu's)
Oh no. Not again!
Considering that you need a machine/chipset that does AMT to do this upgrade (not to mention an OEM processor you're not likely to get sold on the market) it's probably not something the regular home user is going to have to worry about. Yet.
"I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole
Intentionally holding a gun to the customer's head by crippling the device until you pay a ransom is not a way to get my business.
Seriously, WTF?!??!?
How on earth does offering a device for sale that can be upgraded compared to holding a friggin' gun against someone's head?!?
Let me guess: you also refuse to buy a PC because that bastard thingy is intentionally cripped too: you can add more RAM, a better CPU, a better graphics card... but the bastards selling it to you refuse to give that to you.
Or are hardware upgrades a-okay for you, and software upgrades the devil's tool?
So if you don't get the maximal potential from the item, *even though it was marked and sold as less than full potential*, that item is evil?
This sort of practice is disgusting because it means they could just sell it for cheaper anyway.
I had a case in my company: we were competing for a job to deliver some equipment, but our product surpassed the specifications. The buyer neither needed nor was willing to pay us for extra functionality we had in it. We had to compete with simpler products and developing another line of inferior devices was too expensive for this one-shot job. So we locked the extras and left the possibility to unlock it later, if the buyer ever wishes to purchase the upgrade. If we gave everything for too small price, each new customer would demand the same for full-featured product. I guess that was HP's rationale as well. You can break it out yourself, just don't go around telling everyone we lowered our prices.
That is true only in a static, equilibrium world in which no new products or services are ever created. But in the real, dynamic world, competitors require time to develop and bring to market a product that offers equal value. So in a truly free market, a creative individual company will be able to maintain a lead over its competitors, and sell products at a price commensurate to their value to the customer.
What is wrong with this? Gateway is getting cheaper silicon in their lower-end hardware, and users can upgrade performance for a few buck vs. buying a new laptop.
Intel sells the chip to Gateway at a discount, Gateway sells the laptop at a lower price, and the end user that wants better performance can choose to upgrade at a later date - those who don't want the upgrade got what they wanted, cheaper hardware.
If The performance jump were greater, say from dual to quad core, this would be great - Upgrading CPUs in a laptop are what we like to call "forklift upgrades" - albeit a very tiny forklift, this is an alternative.
Ken
if the chip is already rated to go x speed what's going to stop the average user from overclocking it? most rated-for-gaming motherboards have an overclocking option in the bios... so even idiots can do it. will they remove this?
Perhaps this was announced a little early? The list of supported systems at seems to only have placeholders.
I've mirrored the placeholders at for when Intel fix the placeholder problem.
OMG! My cable company transmits a bunch of channels that my cable box could decode, but won't because I haven't paid for them to be unlocked. This makes me so mad! They should either make cable boxes that can't receive channels or let me watch all those channels for free!
Sounds fucking retarded, doesn't it?
That's what I see in 90% of the comments here.
Are they disabling possibly-slightly-defective areas of CPUs, selling them, and then selling a way to enable the possibly-slightly-defective areas, and $50 seems to be just enough to charge to cover the actual likelihood of any part actually having developing a fault in the newly-enabled areas (and then Intel having to issue a replacement)? That seems a pretty good deal, I guess.
Keyless remote receivers are built into every car whether you pay for the option or not. There's an aftermarket keyless remote industry to exploit it.
Let me help you out here a bit:
If INTEL were some poor back-water underdog CPU manufacturer unable to turn a profit, this might be an acceptable temporary tactic to meet market prices and move towards profitability.
If INTEL were selling you some sort of service in addition to turning the function on (support contracts, or such, but what do end-users need supported for this?) this might be acceptable as a way to pay for said hypothetical service.
(Hmm. They send out an engineer to test the RAM or something?)
If INTEL were not determined to turn their near-monopoly of the (desktop/workstation) CPU into a monopoly, and were not determined to push that monopoly into the server market, with chips that burn at least an order of magnitude more energy than they should for the amount of work they do (and far more energy than necessary for the applications areas they are marketing to), there would be less negative reaction to this.
This is just evidence that the i7 is overpriced.
(I think it's overrated, too, but that's a topic for a different thread.)
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
intel seems to be at the forefront every time some new douchebaggery scheme emerges (hdcp, chip id, in bed with ms etc.), do they really think this is a good long term strategy?
Is that you?
Now, think about someone selling a product or importing it through customs at such a lower value that they can collect a higher value later-on, avoid calling it a "rental", and is tax-free done over the wire like a magazine subscription.
You are forgetting that Intel is run by JEWS...that did more to kill DEC/COMPAQ/HP Alpha the all-American computer company unlike AMD.
https://retailupgrades.intel.com/Page.aspx?Name=Upgrade
No Linux version of the upgrade software. Its an MSI file so they cpu upgrade is only available to Windows users.
Windows users get a cpu upgrade for $50, Linux users get a CPU they cant upgrade.
As so many have replied to the identical assertion further up the thread,
AMD (and many others) are disabling functions that don't meet test.
You enable the function and get lucky that it works well enough for your purposes. This is different from INTEL selling you a chip that they know meets spec.
What INTEL is doing is artificially propping the price of the i7 up. And that when they don't need the profits.
I'll add a bit of non-redundant information for you.
AMD et. al. do not test every chip. (Nor does INTEL.) That costs way too much.
They use statistical testing. If they find one chip in a batch that is bad, the whole batch is sent to the recycling bin. If they find one chip in the batch that doesn't meet spec, they do some more sampling to make sure the batch is not likely to be bad, then mark the whole batch with the lower spec. And/or they disable functions. (Disabling functions to make the chip warranteeable is cheaper than testing, yes.)
So, what is happening in the AMD et. al. case is that AMD is actually pushing the price down by not testing.
If AMD tried to do this selling an upgrade trick with their downgraded parts without testing, well, they'd have to be ready to lose a lot of the upgrade fees to handling bad part returns and data damage claims.
Does that help you see the difference?
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Or is that a monthly subscription?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
have we bought a central processing unit which has now become our property because we paid for it, or are we simply buying a "license" to use Intel's "intellectual property"?
It has always been that way. You bought the silicon, but you purchased a perpetual license to use the code in it. But this new proposal is just plain scam. The bad thing is the masses will fall for it and they will make billions.
What is next, if you don't pony up more after a particular time all the cores turn off? "Demo/Trial" CPUs?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Read Intel's site on this:
Vendors can use a program to brand CPUs with their vendor ID and get a cut if somebody "upgrades" that CPU.
http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reseller/asmo-na/eng/404392.htm
Retailers can buy upgrade codes from Intel that result in them getting a cut when activated.
http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reseller/asmo-na/eng/404395.htm
Everybody wins! Well, maybe except for the end user....
It makes no sense for a manufactured part to work like this from a business perspective. The per-unit cost to produce these parts must be enough to cover full capability (or else they are selling at a loss, which is very sketchy to do). They can deliver the full function at the same price point, and in a 'theoretical' competitive market, this means they would be forced to do so by competition. The fact they can arbitrarily bump up the price on the same exact part by 50 bucks and get away with it is an indication of either bad business judgement or a very broken microprocessor market.
In your example, your provider is using broadcast to mitigate costs. Your household not decoding the bandwidth alloted for premium content does not affect the per-unit price of the content. Similarly, software incurs no per-unit manufacturing cost for unusable content, so it can work for them.
This would be like your cable company unicasting to each house all the content they pay for. It simply wouldn't make sense to unicast unusable content to your house as the incremental cost of doing that per non-paying customer would be significant.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
the hunt for unlock-piracy?
How did you get an all cap post past the filter?
It was so loud it overloaded the preamp.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Would this be a one-time fee, or a subscription service?
I can see it now... Buy a crippled CPU (for the full CPU price) where the manufacturer forces you to pay an additional $50 to unlock its full capabilities, but that also comes with a EULA-like contract where you don't actually OWN the chip at that speed, but are merely licensing it. So you have to pay another $50 each year/6 months/month (take your pick) to keep the same performance, or else Intel somehow remotely throttles back the performance again.
Oh, and of course, if you pull the chip out of your motherboard (hardware upgrades, right?), attempt to overclock it, resell the CPU, etc... you will immediately violate the terms of the EULA, forfeit any money you've already paid for the CPU performance, and Intel still gimps your CPU, or worse, disables it completely...
And we'll have to have yet another MPAA/RIAA-like group suing the crap out of everyone who violates the EULA.
We wouldn't want pirated CPUs out there, right?
Gotta keep the public safe. It's all to protect the children... blah, blah, blah
Ugh, this was not a fun train of thought...
I mean it's only CPUs (not food for poor people) but still. Artificial scarcity slows down the development of civilisation.
You could also see it as vendor lock-in or bundling. Because you don't have a choice when you decide to buy the upgrade.
If you have a monopoly, or a near monopoly, you can get away with that.
This is a great idea but a bad implementation. If Intel wanted to build consumer goodwill while still maintaining price flexibility, they should have offered a $50 rebate to anyone willing to 'downgrade' their CPU after they bought it. This is very similar to an experiment I've heard run with soda machines: it's a great idea to be able to dynamically adjust the price of the soda based on the weather, and it's very easy to do: install a temperature sensor, write a little code, and you're ready to go. The trick is how you promote the idea. If you add a "surcharge" when it's hot outside, people get angry and think you're taking advantage of them. However, if you offer a "discount" when it's cold outside, people think they're getting a deal. You can use the same prices and just advertise it differently.
I'm actually all for this. I think if this is geared correctly this will actually drop the overall price down on the chips as they'll only have to make one kind. Then if you decide to upgrade later you get a code - no new hardware needed, and no e-waste. How often do you build a machine and only toss in 2gigs of ram with the thought "oh I'll upgrade that later on my own for cheaper" then never do? Maybe I'm just guilty of that, but I'm 1) lazy and 2) hate waste. If I just needed a code to turn my budget pc into a beast over time I'm all for it.
3rd party software vendors could pay Intel and Microsoft to enable additional CPU resources when their software is running. Advertise and sell incredibly "cheap" CPUs, advertise and sell "cheap" software, and let users pay for a "premium" upgrade to get better app performance. It would take the CrippleWare concept to a whole new level. =P
You're getting close, and you're right, this is definitely NOT the same as selling you a crippled chip that is upgradeable.
Many enterprise customers LOVE this functionality. Often times, enterprise software is priced by number of CPUs. As a result, customers don't WANT additional CPUs when they don't need them. However, business needs may change in the future, so they want the option to upgrade. Often, they will pay EXTRA to have that CPU in there lying dormant. If they need it, they pay to turn it on. If they don't, the amount extra they paid is less (often significantly less, due mainly to software costs) than they would have paid if they had bought the upgrade initially.
For the consumer market, I don't think this makes sense. A newly purchased computer is likely to have all the performance a user needs, even on the low end. Once that is no longer the case, one of two things will have happened:
1.) The user has so much junk running in the background that their CPU is always pegged running junk. In this case, a CPU upgrade might help, but more likely that will just get 100% utilized too. The real solution in this case (for Joe Sixpack) is to buy a new PC. As an alternative they can pay someone to reinstall Windows, which would cost about the same as the CPU upgrade and be much more effective.
2.) It's 3-5 years later and there are new applications (like HD video) that require significantly more computing power. In this case, even adding the new cores won't be enough because the cores you'll be adding are 3-5 year old cores, and there's no guarantee that other components (like the GPU) will be up to it. Again, the correct solution is to buy a new PC.
The key here is that for the majority of consumers, low-end is good enough. When they do want an upgrade they either have software problems or they need a BIG upgrade.
There is a 4th scenario that Intel is avoiding:
4. You have an option of buying an i5 for $200 or an i7 for $210 because Intel decided to stop fucking around with artificial market segmentation.
If a company is keen on playing games like this, then you can be sure that they are doing so to get more money out of you. You reason that you can't be worse off because of this only due to ignorance.
This is pretty simple. Intel's manufacturing is about the best in the business. They've gotten to the point where their perfect yields are so high, they cant lower bin substandard parts. They get variable demand for cpu parts that are all made from the same building blocks. So they throttle down some parts and sell them for the same price they'd sell that part for if it werent throttled, then they allow a customer to cheaply and easily upgrade their cpu power without having to buy a new computer or transfer all your stuff.
Somehow this is perceived to be bad, and Intel is the evil empire. How does one contort their brains to the extent where that seems the reasonable outcome?
Whats even nuttier is that the entire world is filled with products that are exactly the same. Half the stuff people buy can do a lot more than its labeled as, but the manufacturer has more demand for the lower capability, lower cost product and the manufacturing price differences are so similar, its in the manufacturers best interest to produce the same thing and label it differently.
If you've ever bought a generic product at a store/supermarket, chances are you bought the same thing thats further down the aisle with a brand name on it, made by the same company, on the same line, only with a different label and a higher price.
This is a nice service at a reasonable price. Dont take advantage of it and you're out absolutely nothing. Take advantage of it and get a nice gain for a reasonable price. Where the hell is the downside again?!?
"... Intel's long history of doing things badly..."
What other incidents are on your list of Intel doing things badly?
Jeezuz. I think you need to pull your eyes back a few more inches to look at the big picture.
This is the same issue as Net Neutrality. Creating artificial shortages in order to stratify the public into haves and have-nots when everybody could happily have the same highest level of quality for the same reasonable price.
If this system comes into effect in its fullest expression, do you honestly believe that you would even be able to afford a "first class" processor? If when buying hardware, you even entertain the IDEA that you might like to upgrade later, (as you indicate), then you don't have enough money to ever be a first class computer user.
The only reason I'd be for this idea is that artificial limitations can be hacked, and usually are. But then it would be just one more intensely stupid way that people would be criminalized.
Fuck Intel on this. It's a bad call.
-FL
This could really muck up the depreciation cost of IT data centers.
Intel has to have run some financial models on this to go this direction.
Is the $50 unlock going to depreciated or be full cost 3 years after the initial sale?
If I got a racks that we don't have to have a pull and replace with current CPUs but could get another 1 -2 years by unlocking them I'm going to get a note from the comptroller for not choosing to spend the really low unlock cost but instead going with upgrades which will be higher.
Next will the unlock transfer?
That would really bite if it was non-transferable unlock / license.
This would also be important when a CPU does go casters up and is replaced with a like unit. Would the unlock follow the specific CPU package or the customer installation? Doing any kind of "credit" tracking is a nightmare financially and for license compliance.
Second hand sales are also a potential problem.
Anyhow I also see Viking and/or SDD makers also doing this stuff with the wacky great Sata DIMM. How many more circuits needed to unlock 1TB RAM drawn from SDD rather than the base 32 GB they sold you a license for.
Non mainframe datacenters have had "unlockable" storage upgrades for almost over decade (IE tape libs), its almost time for unlockable, SDD, CPU & SDD/SATA memory upgrades.
I think many commenters here don't understand how a free-market system and capitalism works.
A company can charge ANY price it wants for its products, regardless of the cost to make them. Do you really believe, for instance, that a BMW 5 series costs $20-30k more to make than a similarly equipped 3 series? Heck no -- in fact, the two cars share a lot of the same major parts (like engines in certain versions of them).
A manufacturer can set any price it feels the market can bear. And from a marketing and computer upgrade standpoint, this move by Intel makes perfect sense for the normal consumer market. Instead of having to upgrade your whole computer in 2 years, pay Intel the $50 and your computer may be good for another 2 years.
This "you're being ripped off" bit is ridiculous and would only be a logical argument in a socialist system where all prices were pre-determined by a government entity and set according to exactly what it cost to make the product + X percent markup.
Luckily, we do not live in such a system.
--
Mental health and psychology at Psych Central
The problem is not the new model in itself. If you consider price discrimination to be a good thing, then the new model is indeed a win-win. (Actually, if you account for the fact that Intel has to put some extra silicon in the chip to support this new model, it's not going to be a definite win-win, but let's forget about that)
The problem is that in order for this new model to work, you have to resign you property rights on the piece of harware that you buy. You will no longer be allowed to do whatever you want with it. You will only have a license to use it in some restricted way. The software industry and the entertainment industry went down that road some time ago, and many of us feel it as a bad thing. We don't want the same to happen with our hardware.
Of all the economists I've read recently, my own views are closest to Stiglitz. But I don't think he's saying what you seem to imply.
One problem with the invisible hand metaphor is that an invisible hand never takes a sick day. Everyone just assumes it shows up for work. It works under certain conditions, but those conditions are not guaranteed to exist without a steady hand at the switch. One of the services that government can provide to the economy is arranging for those conditions to exist more often than not. Sure, this is expensive, but the last time the invisible hand spread a fever and then took sick leave, the invisible hand collected a trillion dollar bonus payment. That doesn't seem right to me.
It also continues a worrisome trend in America of widening income disparity. The entire economy is shifting to drug lord structure: only the guy at the top has money to burn and chicks for free, everyone else functions with an aspirational motivation, to have a life that sucks less by moving another rung up the ladder.
It works the same in professional sports. The vast majority of athletes who try to break into the pro leagues are lucky to break minimum wage for the time and energy invested, if they don't actually lose money. You might say that the weak aspirants should know better. Try that argument on a pro scout. There's no obvious formula for picking the gems. There's a few dead ringers in every draft year, which is exactly my point. The vast majority have uncertain prospects, even athletes drafted after the top ten from the first round.
In MLB I once watched a show on the draft process which stated that 50% of the prospects with enough talent and drive to make it fall by the wayside on injuries, esp. rotator cuff. Six months off at a key point in your development is a terrible set back, even with full recovery. Athletes, especially young men, have a lot of ego. Few believe in statistics. The setback will happen to the other guy. I'm better than him. But in reality, it's mostly a coin flip.
There's a scene in Days of Thunder which I recall because Tom Cruise, posing as a racer in real life on the publicity tour, stated that he really believed his dialog when his character said that avoiding an accident in front of you is more skill than luck. And why wouldn't he? In his own profession, he's one of the chosen few. No matter what he believes in his spare time. IIRC, Tom actually said that the opposing dialog made him furious when filming the scene.
One of the problems with systems more like Somali and less like Sweden is promoting ruthlessness and cruelty and placing a low value on life at the bottom. This translates into less education for young girls (which drives global population growth), and more boys willing their way to glory with high explosives (which shrouds freedom with the Patriot Act).
So what kind of society does the invisible hand prefer? More like Sweden or more like Somalia? Or is it somehow value neutral by the virgin birth and the miracle of small government?
A better question is this: What roles must government play to ensure that privatizing profit comes along with privatizing loss (no more "too big to fail")? And what is the least expensive way for government to provide this function? And what is our rational at the end of the day that Gorden Gecko won't find yet another way to steer us over a cliff? Greed is good, but so is ensuring that the greedy are playing with their own bankrolls, and not cleverly mortgaging the system around them.
It surprises me that this thing with Intel inflames passions. The practice has been around for a long time. Circa 1980 there were expensive washing-machine disk drives where the vendor would enable half the platters at the time
What if you take the CPU out and put it in another system?
Where is the flipped bit stored??
isp had lots of cost in ruining news groups needing lot's of big raid setups in just one part.
Here's one for you:
Would INTEL go out of business if they failed to sell i7s as i5s?
Overpricing is not strictly evil if the company doing it doesn't effectively control the market.
Let's try another thought experiment with you.
What happens when AMD goes bankrupt and ceases operations because INTEL has sucked all the profits up with all their market engineering?
Two points I was trying to make in one post:
(1) This is different from disabling functions because the test sample produced parts that failed to meet certain tests.
(2) This is not something a market leader should do.
It's probably not something non-leaders should do, either, your too-sophisticated thought experiment not-withstanding, but that would be their choice.
Market leaders have more limited options in what they do. Otherwise, the market cannot be kept free. (Another of your false assumptions.)
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Anyone remember the 386SX chip? It was the 386DX with the math coprocessor deliberately disabled to sell to a different market niche.
-Styopa
Back in the days when dinosaurs were still walking the streets, I worked for an oil company that owned a large Control Data Corp. Cyber mainframe (ah, those were the days..)
At one point my employer got an offer from CDC to upgrade the memory of their Cyber, to double the size (I think from 32 MB to 64 MB). The only problem was the price, it was so horribly expensive that even an oil company had to think about it. And debate it endlessly internally, as I recall. In the end, CDC offered to lease the upgrade to them, so they accepted.
The next day our resident CDC technician (yes, resident. These computers came with an on-site technician) walked into the computer room with a pair of wire cutters in hand. He shut down the Cyber, opened a cabinet door and cut a single wire on the backplane. "There, all done."
Needless to say, my employer was not amused, but they got the memory upgrade they paid for.
In many ways this issue is the same as downloading crippleware or time limited try-before-you-buy software. The full functionality is already there, but you haven't yet paid a license for the right to use it.
In the end this comes down to a question of virtual vs. physical ownership. If we accept that we don't own a piece of software, just the right to use it, why not the same with hardware? You paid for a processor, yes. It's physical, you carried it home from the store. The manufacturer promised you N cores, spinning at whatever GHz, and with a certain amount of cache. They delivered on that promise.
Now they're offering an upgrade without the need for a new trip to the store. Why is this bad?
And remember kids: Never trust a computer you can actually lift.
That was a serious, but honest mistake. That mistake was due to mismanagement, but not extreme mismanagement.
The whole idea of this might be that it's 'broken'. What would you rather buy? An Intel chip that you can hack (eg. i5 to i7) or an AMD chip that you can't?
You can bet that each chip will only go up one stepping, not all the way to the top and there will be other limitations (maybe only mid-range chips will allow it).
It's a bit like AMD's black editions - they don't garantee overclocking but hint that it might work. They never harmed AMD sales. I bet broken DRM won't harm Intel sales either.
No sig today...
Please be more specific...I'm not seeing anybody.
No sig today...
DON'T BUY INTEL PRODUCTS...
Intel is 'in bed' with Israel a country who is involved in some of the worst human rights abuses on its own civilian population today. Including the use of phosphorus and DU weapons. Use your money to send a message to the world that Human and Civil Rights matter a LOT!
I'm interested in exploring any evidence of poor or good management at Intel. Intel's failures seem to be not technological, but sociological.
Are the management shortcomings at Intel severe enough that the CEO should be replaced? I wrote this Slashdot comment that considers some of the issues: Intel buy nVidia? Replace Intel CEO Otellini?
You said, "The list could go on. Instead, this discussion regards blatant usury for CPUs." What is the next most important issue? Yes, this Slashdot story is about a practice that would result in Intel damaging its own reputation, but what is the larger picture? Is there some overlying insufficiency of management that connects all the management failures together?
WHAT THIS MEANS
PRICE DISCRIMINATION
what Intel is doing with crippling the CPUs is called 2nd DEGREE PRICE DISCRIMINATION + 3rd DEGREE PRICE DISCRIMINATION – it is charging different prices for supposedly different versions of the same underneath silicon chip. Plus, by providing such CPUs, Intel has divided consumers into two groups with separate demand curves & charges different prices to each group – at each group's reservation price ( the price each from each group is willing to pay ), CAPTURING ALL THE SURPLUS from CONSUMER.
ECONOMIES OF SCALE, MATURITY OF LITHOGRAPHY
As everyone said here, their chip baking processes are so mature that they have very low chips with defects from the platter. Even with ever shrinking technologies.
If they have very similar products in terms of architecture & features, priced differently, it probably means that underneath the chips are identical & have the same number of transistors. They are just branded differently, or “crippled” to PRICE DISCRIMINATE.
COLLUSION
Majority of the CPU market is CISC architecture ( i386, x86, etc ) share is divided between Intel + AMD – This is OLIGOPOLY, or in case 1 vs 1 a DUOPOLY. Others' share is almost negligible in this MASS market. I even go to say that other markets are niche ones - RISCs ( Power, Itanium, etc ).
Oligopoly, it's features & barriers of entry:
economies of scale ( Intel can get resources much cheaper than AMD. Or it can push retailers. Intel did this with DELL, had to settle this issue with AMD )
patents(Intel licensed AMD to produce i386 compatible chips, licensing SSE to AMD, AMD cross licensing x86-64 to Intel, etc)
technology(chip production, R&D, lithography, etc)
name recognition( hello, anybody knows, “intel inside”, “pentium” )
strategic actions by incumbent ( Intel can afford to sell their chips so cheap that AMD goes bankrupt in a short time, that is Intel can wipe off AMD, for example )
REMARK : because there are only a few firms, each must consider how its actions will affect its rivals and in turn how their rivals will react ( Price – P, Quantity – Q, advertising, investing in new production capacity, etc )
Eventually, Intel & AMD will come to an EQUILIBRIUM, a state where, each is doing its best given what its competitor is doing. They both want to produce when Marginal Revenue = Marginal Cost, where each maximizes its own profit. Plus, they can collude ( which is illegal ) they can both go for collusion equilibrium. If that doesn't work, they go for COURNOT equilibrium, else – COMPETITIVE(which will never happen, as the CPU market is dominated by Intel & the CPU market is not a perfectly competitive market).
Because Intel is dominant, we have THE DOMINANT FIRM MODEL.
In this scenario, the dominant firm – Intel, determines its Demand curve, as a difference between market Demand and Supply of fringe firms. Then it maximizes its profits where its Marginal Revenues = Marginal Costs.
LEMONS & WHAT ALL THIS MEANS TO CONSUMERS:
Intel is even more efficient that if it was a monopoly. Because, if there is a monopoly, there is DEADWEIGHT LOSS to SOCIETY, where neither Intel nor Consumers can enjoy their surplus. However, in this case, Intel captures all the surplus, slicing & dicing the customers & setting prices that none is left to economic inefficiency. Hence, we, as consumers, can't enjoy cheap & powerful CPUs anymore, instead we HAVE to pay what they offer.
Now, with less competition from AMD, we as consumers loose out in a long run as well.
I have only purchased one Intel processor for a system build: the PGA370 Celeron 400MHz with a motherboard that was originally "supposed" to support the PGA370 Pentium III processor. Intel then screwed everyone by introducing the "flip chip", changed the electrical configuration on the Pentium III processors (FC-PGA370), requiring anyone who wanted to upgrade their CPU to replace their motherboard. I've never purchased an Intel processor for a system build ever since. This "Intel Upgrade Service" con is only one more grain of sand on the pile.
I do agree the software will be pirated shortly after the CPU is released, however there will still be many people foolish enough to fork over the $$.
...but now I'm solidly in the AMD camp. Fuck you, Intel.
Same reason I now lean towards ATI video cards, even though their cards are clearly inferior at the moment. ATI open sources drivers while nVidia invents new proprietary tech like CUDA and tries to lock users in with PhysX.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Does this ring a bell for anyone? Didn't Bioshock 2 try to pull something like this where you could buy additional game content that was already on the original disk that you had already purchased? I'm really not sure how I feel about either of these scenario's but it seems like there is an artificial market being constructed here. As people have pointed out, selling a chip to me for $200 with locked features and still turning a profit on that sale, then trying to sell me additional features that are already on the chip for more money seems like price gouging. Why not just sell the same chip to everyone at a decent price? Mind you I'm not a marketing/business major... I guess I don't know how to screw people out of their money...
As many posters have pointed out, this has been done with hardware for sometime now, only difference is a fix for the disable being implemented on software. Both CPU and GPU have had instances of disabling certain features through hardware, and hobbyists have figured out ways to reconnect them, if you really want to. Usually there is a chance of destroying whatever you are altering, but that's the risk you take.
At one point Graphic Cards did the EXACT same thing, where pipes, etc would be disabled, but using their driver software, through I don't think companies would trying to sell you an upgrade, just binning cards for the market an easy way, a more easy way than actually having to design a whole bunch of crippled cards. This CPU crippling is the same, it would be much easier/cheaper to simply make one chip and disable some for cheaper markets than to design and build crippled chips.
The problem with this model which the graphic card industry found out VERY quick (I think it only lasted a year or two), is that hobbyists found out REALLY quick that all the cards are exactly the same so all you had to do was crack the driver and you could turn your 100$ card into a 500$ card. This was done in no time, and everyone installed the crack software and the cheap card, as why would you ever buy the expensive one?
Intel will learn of this if they follow through with this plan, I guarantee it.
We are unable to process your request at this time. Please try again in a few minutes. If you continue to get an error please contact Intel Customer Support and provide the following error code: 44F9482A
Looks like Intel needs to unlock their own chip's full capabilities.
AccountKiller
So how long until there's a virus that disables the cores on your "unlocked" CPU's?
Isn't it a fact that car dealers charge for prep-charges and for whatever else they can get away with? So why should Intel not do it. They are already the most expensive vendor of computers on the market. I can see Intels action as opening the door to competition, and I hope the competition does gear up for it. Here is a saying for companies that gouge. You can always find better, but you can't pay more. Think about your last car purchase from a dealer and keep on smiling. The next step is to rent you the right to consume computer cycles. Greed hath no limits.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
"Crippled" or not, it's not like the specs of what you are buying aren't known at time of purchase. The operational terms (speed, cache size, etc.) of what you are buying are linked to the price; if you don't like that there is spare cache waiting to be unlocked, then shell out the extra $50 up front and get a model that has the cache unlocked out of the box.
And that's the key point: CPU upgrades no longer have to be a "replace the whole chip" activity. You can pay a lower price point up front to get the CPU, and then down the road pay an addition $50 to breathe some more performance into your existing CPU. It provides an incremental upgrade path with lower price points and doesn't involve swapping chips.
...protected using HDCP encryption!
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Am I allowed to say that this blows chunks? An extra $50 to unlock the full potential of the chip? Why not just raise the price, or is the extra stuff just for geeks and normal clods don't need it?
"You want a consulting job?"
Not in this case. I'm interested in Intel because I'm writing a book partly about the sociology of technological companies.
"You heard it here: short the stock."
I'm guessing Intel will do well in the next 2 years. Intel has recently released the Q57 chipset which, when paired with new CPUs that have integrated video, provide Intel's first video that is fully sufficient for office use. The Q57 includes a VNC client that provides remote maintenance, even for BIOS settings. It seems to me that combination will be successful with companies that are interested in upgrading to new systems.
However, I'm interested in discussing any of the issues. I notice that there is only one motherboard with the Q57 chipset available on the market, from Asus. Gigabyte lists one on its web site, but a salesman told me that none are available.
Intel's success has been independent of its sometimes foolish marketing schemes, in my opinion.
Now I can overclock my CPU just like the big boys!!! And its cheaper too
This looks like some accounting shenanigans, where that $50 for the "upgrade" is being taken from the retailers (who do not get a cut of it), and I suspect also not being taxed the same way (i.e. the "upgrade" is sold out-of-state, so no sales tax). So this is a number-juggling to get more money to intel without giving the normal cut to retailers and the government.
Ok, so Intel's reserving hyper-threading and 1MB of L2 cache as the unlocked "upgrade". Let's get past the other issues -- does the unlock get buried deep into the motherboard/CPU, or do we have to re-buy per OS, stuff like that. Intel's FAQ suggests its a Windows 7 thing...
My simple question: hyper-threading, while cheap, doesn't always improve performance. Sometimes it hurts performance. The scenario is simple: you're running multiple threads on the same L1 and L2 caches, so the caches are missing more often than before. That's of course why the 1MB of extra cache is part of the deal.
This was a quirk before this move: if hyper-threading didn't work for you, you'd turn it off, if it did, you'd turn it on; no harm, no foul. But now, they're asking for extra money for a performance boost. If I pay that, and don't get the performance boost (or worse yet, cache thrashing has me losing performance), I think there's every chance for a big old class action suit against Intel. Even if they're setting aside 1MB L2 cache on a 2MB L2 cache system, the performance could be worse, due to thrashing of the L1 cache.
-Dave Haynie