Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Wants To Charge $50 To Unlock Your CPU's Full Capabilities

Posted by Soulskill on from the say-no-to-hardware-dlc dept.

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."

15 of 832 comments (clear)

  1. I hope this doesn't fly ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:I hope this doesn't fly ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem is that it doesn't make sense from the common sense point of view.

      This may come down to economies of scale. If you only have to manufacture one processor, and simply deactivate parts of it, rather than tooling up for multiple chips, there might be a significant savings there. In fact, I'm rather inclined to think that that's all there is to it.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:I hope this doesn't fly ... by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's no bait-and-switch here. People are getting exactly what is advertised. Where's the problem?

      The problem is that if these extras are so cheap that Intel figures they can afford to put them in every CPU even if only a few people buy them, then there's clearly a large disparity between the cost to produce the feature and the current market price for it. Long-term, this typically happens when there's a distinct lack of competition and a natural monopoly is arising. Normally, competition will drive the market price for features down to a small percentage above their cost to produce.

      I'm pretty pro-free market and have eaten my share of down-ratings here for it. But that Intel is considering something like this is a pretty big warning sign that the free market isn't working as it should in this market.

  2. Lock in the BIOS or in the CPU? by crow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  3. Don't let the marketing get to you... by Anachragnome · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  4. Re:Can you hear that? by hawkingradiation · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sometimes it is harder to get an OEM computer to use AMD (like apple) but according to AMD's website: Powering ultrathin notebooks to blade servers, all AMD processors shipped are designed to use AMD-V features. Where as Intel has been a little less free and more cumbersome. For instance most Atom processors by Intel do not support virtualization but all shipping AMD (and it has been a while) do. Also computer models such as the sony viao (undercapitalized for a reason) use the "feature" provided by Intel to disallow virtualization through the BIOS, meaning that you have to turn in on before booting. Along with other technology that AMD has developed makes you wonder why Intel is so dominant in the space. So for an informed geek, switching to AMD was already a good move, if only the manufacturers would follow.

    --
    Society use your Sciences
  5. Re:I'm all for it by BrokenHalo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Pirated or jailbroken, that is one CPU I will not buy. 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.

  6. Windows 7 only unlock! by scrib · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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!
  7. Re:I'm all for it by mysidia · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You know... Intel being the CPU manufacturer, could make this really robust. Each CPU already gets stamped with a unique serial number. They could stamp each one with a unique unlock code that goes with the serial number, as well.

    Then the only way to 'unlock' the function would be to go through Intel, so they would look up your specific CPU's unlock code in the database.

    That's impossible to pirate, because there's no way you can share the code. As long as they assure the unlock code is the only mechanism allowed to re-enable the capabilities, and there is no BIOS mechanism to override the lock.

  8. Re:Yeah, That'll Last by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    it would be completely impractical to try to hard code a different key onto each chip during manufacturing.

    Didn't Intel processors have a unique ID at one time?

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  9. Re:Hey, I don't mind.. by sayfawa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But this is backwards. In the sane world, the reason why paying less gets you less is because the cheaper product was cheaper to make. Not only is their locked down product not cheaper to make, but it's actually making the whole line more expensive. Some of our dollars are actually going towards the developers for the purpose of making the product worse, by locking it down.

    --
    Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!
  10. Re:I'm all for it by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This isn't the same thing, though - these are perfectly good chips that are crippled so that Intel doesn't have to manufacture chips at multiple price points. Maybe their reject rate has dropped enough that it's not a viable way to get lower-performance chips.

  11. Re:I'm all for it by dargaud · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Pirated or jailbroken, that is one CPU I will not buy. 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.

    I completely agree. This 'method' of doing business has been going on for a long time in the digital spectrometer world and mainframe world. I find it revolting and for the period when I had some decision power on what was being purchased I made it very clear to vendors that I would never consider their equipment for that very reason. Fortunately (for them), I'm back to lowly coder now.

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  12. Good for users - more options by goodforusers · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  13. Re:I'm all for it by IICV · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One thing nobody's talking about is why Intel is doing this.

    The only reason I can imagine is that they're sitting on some technology that will greatly reduce fabrication flaws, which means that far more chips will be coming out of their factories that are capable of running at full specification than the market wants.

    That, or they're already outputting a high percentage of chips that are capable of running at higher rates, and disabling them - a much higher percentage than they used to be able to manage, if it makes sense to actually market these chips as upgradeable.