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."

51 of 832 comments (clear)

  1. I'm all for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Especially since it'll likely be pirated before the CPU ships.

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. Re:I'm all for it by hardburn · · Score: 3, Informative

      Happens all the time, actually, they usually just don't offer a way to unlock it. They make a run of all the chips of a given architecture, then put them through tests. The ones that pass clean are set to highest offered speed or full cache, while the not quite so good ones are brought down a notch. Also happens for GPUs, hard drive platters, and even resistor tolerances.

      Sometimes people figure out tricks to unlock everything (with the caveat that the company sold it to you that way for a reason), but who knew Intel would sell their own tool hacker tool?

      --
      Not a typewriter
    4. Re:I'm all for it by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How long until the serial numbers are spoofed? This reminds me of the Pentiums with those identifiers being broadcast to the internet. It didn't take long for those to be disabled, and ultimately, Intel decided it was the wrong thing to do. http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/04/35950

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    5. Re:I'm all for it by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're not thinking about the marketing opportunity Apple has with this. This isn't like Apple charging customers extra for 802.11n. Apple had an acceptable reason. You sell me a chip that is intentionally handicapped, and then tell me that for $50 more, you will unlock it; as a consumer, it's fully reasonable for me to think you're taking advantage of me. It doesn't cost you anything to sell me that same product not handicapped, so why do this if it's not just to make more money? This is about perception, not logic and not facts. Why not just sell me a fully working product the first time? I can understand having to pay extra for MPEG-2 support in a piece of software or hardware, as there are licensing issues with a third party, but you're Intel. This is your chip.

      Apple could bank on this by not using these chips and then running a new Mac vs PC ad wherein PC talks about all the great things you can do while going over a list of upgrades you have to unlock along the way: first to Windows so you can have all the features, then the CPU, and then toss in a joke maybe about GPU and RAM upgrades. Again, it's perception.

    6. Re:I'm all for it by JorDan+Clock · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's impossible to pirate

      I think I've heard that line before.

    7. 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.

    8. Re:I'm all for it by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As long as someone has physical posession of the device there is no such thing as absolute security.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    9. Re:I'm all for it by muridae · · Score: 5, Informative

      You know that you probably bought a handicapped chip already, right? Chances are a good portion of the economy cpus out there had a core or two disabled just to meet a shipping quota and price point, not because the core failed an integrity check. So, Intel spends some money making the Q/A test disable cores when it needs more chips in the economy bin and less in the high-end one. This just shifts the market a little. Now, instead of disabling a core by frying it completely, they just lock it in firmware. You, the end user, still get your economy priced chip. If you decide to upgrade you just buy the software to unlock it.

      This is not some software that works the other way around, you know. The chip you buy isn't going to say "4 Cores and 32Mb cache" and then show up as 2 and 1 meg. The box might tell you, instead "2 core (upgradeable to 4)". The computer upgrade goes from being something geeks know how to do, to something any mom and pop and uncle bob can do. If they can get past the perception of it, no big deal. However, most of those people have no idea what a computer upgrade requires, and telling them that you can do it with software is something they have suspected anyways.

      The real problem is that it becomes buy computer -> download spyware, games, p2p crap -> oh no's it is slow -> buy upgrade card -> more crapware -> "why can't I buy another upgrade card?"

    10. 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 ?
    11. Re:I'm all for it by CarpetShark · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can understand having to pay extra for MPEG-2 support in a piece of software or hardware, as there are licensing issues

      You're too understanding. Cooking recipes cannot be copyrighted. Neither should video decoding recipes.

    12. Re:I'm all for it by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Vendors will hate it. They'll get an increased rate of support calls about it, and none of the benefits, because the fifty bucks goes to Intel.

    13. Re:I'm all for it by douglips · · Score: 4, Informative

      Cooking recipes can be patented. Copyright != patent.

      --
      My amazing wife - Artist, Author, Philosopher - Laurie M
    14. 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.

    15. Re:I'm all for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      Excuse me, but I fail to see the loser here.

      Intel wins: it can focus resources on manufacturing a single processor for multiple price-points
      Customer wins: for a fee, they can upgrade their processor without having to touch a single piece of hardware

      Why the outrage? If you assume Intel doesn't have enough defects to bin into lower priced models, compare this to their alternative. They manufacture and sell additional processor lines in order to cover all their price segments. Consequently, fewer engineering resources per line, less optimization and likelihood of "free" clock-speed bumps, and higher manufacturing costs per processor (and therefore less downward pricing flexibility).

      "But Intel isn't giving me all I bought!"
      Bullshit. You *bought* the cheaper model. If you wanted the more expensive one, then you pay for it. If you don't like Intel's pricing, then you buy AMD.

    16. Re:I'm all for it by Haeleth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      Yes, like they have been doing for years. If demand for cheap chips exceeds demand for expensive chips, they cripple some expensive chips and sell them cheaply. This increases their profits and, by decreasing the complexity of the manufacturing process, also reduces the price of the expensive chips. It's a good thing.

      The only new thing here is that they are now also providing a simple way for people who got one of the crippled chips to uncripple it. Which is also a good thing.

      I was outraged when I saw the Slashdot headline too. Then I read TFA. Then I spent a few seconds thinking about the pros and cons of this. And suddenly I'm not outraged any more. I put it to Slashdot that this concept of "thinking" is a useful tool that ought to be applied more widely.

    17. Re:I'm all for it by joeyblades · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but I've been in the semiconductor business for over 30 years and we've always been doing this. Manufacture one device with certain performance or features that can be disabled and sell 2 or more different versions. It happens with other kinds of technologies, as well.

      You're confused about the cost part of the equation, though. Usually what happens is that the marketing gurus figure out how much market share you're going to get with each flavor and set the price accordingly. Often, if you only sold the low-end version you would not make enough profit. You count on some sales of the high-end version to offset the actual cost. It's a gamble and if your marketing team guesses wrong, and no one wants the high-end flavor, you lose money. If they guess wrong and everyone only wants the high-end flavor, then everyone gets a nice bonus...

      I've seen it go both ways.

      If the upgrade capability was zero cost, Intel would do exactly what you say. Just make that the standard; it's free marketshare. The fact that they had to get creative is a sure sign that it's not zero cost.

  2. Yeah, That'll Last by MoonBuggy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Crack coming out in 3...2...1...

    1. Re:Yeah, That'll Last by BlkRb0t · · Score: 5, Funny

      Finally, we can pirate hardware.

    2. 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!
    3. Re:Yeah, That'll Last by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, a one-time pad is a butterfly-shaped absorbant sheet of cotton and/or synthetic fiber. It goes where no Slashdotter has gone before.

  3. 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 Greyfox · · Score: 5, Informative

      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. Some companies only turn on their extra processors for a short time each year (Like end-of-year transaction processing) and if you decide you need some more space in your disk array, it's much more convenient than having to have more disks installed or buy a new disk array.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    2. Re:I hope this doesn't fly ... by Haeleth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Not a great analogy. Can you try again only with more cars?

      This isn't a case of you buying a Core i7 and Intel saying "by the way, we only gave you a Core i5, but you can have the full i7 you paid for if you give us another $50".

      This is a case of you buying a Core i5 and Intel saying "here is exactly what you paid for, and by the way, if you ever decide you should have bought a Core i7 instead, we can magically teleport one into your computer for just $50".

      If you want the pocket knife with a built-in compass, pay for the one that has a compass in it. If you deliberately buy a knife that says "KNIFE WITHOUT COMPASS (compass is available at extra cost)", you have no reason to complain when it turns out you have to pay extra to get a compass!

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

    3. Re:I hope this doesn't fly ... by mysidia · · Score: 3, Informative

      CPUs have built-in software, they are just commonly called 'Microcode' instead of software.

      Hyperthreading is a software feature that involves using hardware to implement it.

      So is "VT" / Virtualization Technlogy

      There are even ATOM CPUs where the hardware is 64-bit capable, but Intel ships without the 64-bit capability enabled in the software.

      So, yes, it's a technlogical protection that defends intel's exclusive right to license and distribute the Hyperthreading software.

      Until you have been provided the code, Intel has not licensed the Hyperthreading software to you. It's just like an expired trial version of any sort of shareware you might have on your computer.

      I wonder if Intel will offer a 30 day trial of Hyperthreading and Cache expansion <GT>

    4. Re:I hope this doesn't fly ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Informative

      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. Some companies only turn on their extra processors for a short time each year (Like end-of-year transaction processing) and if you decide you need some more space in your disk array, it's much more convenient than having to have more disks installed or buy a new disk array.

      True. My father used to work on a Hewlett-Packard mainframe back in the seventies, and he ordered some extra hard disk space. The HP tech came out, opened the casing of each drive (big freestanding units), reached in the back and flipped a DIP switch. Voila!, extra space. He even showed Dad how to turn on the entire drive if he wanted ... apparently HP didn't care (it wasn't a contract violation or anything) but wouldn't provide any support if you did.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. 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.
    6. Re:I hope this doesn't fly ... by gnasher719 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...except that you did buy an i7, it's just that they didn't tell you about it. Just because a feature wasn't advertised doesn't mean I didn't pay for it when I bought the hardware, or that the price I paid didn't include the cost of manufacturing that extra feature. You shouldn't be going around critiquing other peoples' analogies if you're going to liken activating hardware that you've already paid for to magically teleporting new hardware into your computer...

      So here are three scenarios:

      1. You have a choice of buying an i5 for $200, or an i7 for $300.
      2. You have a choice of buying an i7 that pretends to be an i5 for $200, or an i7 for $300.
      3. You have a choice of buying an i7 that pretends to be an i5 for $200, or an i7 for $300. If you pay $200, you can later for a payment of $100 turn it into an i7.

      For me, choices (1) and (2) are identical, but choice (3) is without any doubt better. There is no situation where I am worse off than with choice 1 or 2, and in some situations I'm better off.

    7. 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.

    8. Re:I hope this doesn't fly ... by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's no bait and switch, but people instinctively understand that the sale price is supposed to closely track the marginal cost of production. Speculatively including extras but leaving them disabled reveals in bold print that the market isn't sufficiently healthy to drive the price down to it's natural free market level. When it's physically separable extra hardware you can at least argue that it's just distributed warehousing.

      People won't really be able to help thinking that Intel could afford to give them a better deal since flipping the switch costs nothing.

  4. Can you hear that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can you hear that?

    That's the sound of so many informed geeks switching to AMD.

    1. 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
    2. Re:Can you hear that? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is a test by Intel. If it fails, Intel will drop it. If it succeeds, AMD will adopt it.

  5. Let's hope they used the same key as HDCP by laing · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  6. 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.

  7. That's OS licensing... by Qubit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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 /* the rest is */
  8. Re:Ridiculous... by dimeglio · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Look at it this way: you buy a CPU at $200 with one core. A year later, you need more performance. Instead of trashing the entire computer (ram, cpu, and motherboard at least), you simply pay a mere $50, unlock 3 more cores, booth the clock by 100% and throw-in hyperthreading. You'll extend the life of the unit for at least another year saving a few hundred dollars. Make it 6 months and another 6 months but the idea is the same.

    I might work great if the price and options are right.

    --
    Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
  9. 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.

  10. Re:Hey, I don't mind.. by sdnoob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As long as I get a $50 break on a new CPU!

    You already are... by buying the Pentium instead of the more expensive i3 that already has the extra MB of L3 and HT enabled.

    _____

    Intel and AMD have both been shipping chips with certain features disabled to meet market demands for years. Nvidia and ATI do the same with GPUs. Sometimes the disabled parts are actually defective, but sometimes not. Then you have two chips that cost the exact same to manufacture sell at two different price points, with the manufacturer intentionally choosing to sell some at a lower price (with the plan of making up the difference through higher sales).

    Owners of certain AMD processors have been able to unlock entire cores along with extra cache for some time now. Intel is just trying to profit from it. I just don't know how well that idea will go over with the uninformed masses. I think many will be just a bit pissed-off that they were sold an intentionally-crippled computer. Unfortunately, any backlash will be aimed at the company who's logo is on the box, not Intel.

  11. Re:Similar experience at bestbuy by Kitkoan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fifteen enormous cocks raping every orifice in your body.

    I couldn't describe hiring the geeksquad any better then that.

    --
    Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
  12. $200 should have bought full functionality then by mrnobo1024 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. 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!
    1. Re:Windows 7 only unlock! by jpmorgan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes. Modern CPUs can be given what's called a 'microcode update' during system boot by driver. Microcode updates are volatile, so they need to be reapplied on each boot. Generally this is done to fix minor bugs that slipped through testing. In this case, Intel is allowing the microcode to unlock additional capabilities.

      Only available for Windows 7 right now, but generally microcode update drivers are available for all common platforms (e.g., Linux). If Intel is serious about this business model, it's likely that they'll roll out updated microcode drivers for other supported platforms soon.

  14. 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!
  15. Sounds as if by turkeyfish · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Sounds as if by Bert64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but AMD aren't trying to sell you an upgrade...
      You may have a 3rd core which is defective, or you may get lucky and its just disabled and you can re-enable it with software for free. Either way you bought a cheaper chip.
      Intel on the other hand are selling a chip which is definitely fully working, and then trying to charge you extra to make use of the hardware you've already bought. AMD aren't trying to screw money out of you, you *may* end up getting a bargain out of them.

      Intent is all important.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    2. Re:Sounds as if by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't have access to Intel's market research data, so I can't meaningfully predict if they would make more or less money with that approach. It's worth noting, however, that Intel's entire business model revolves around largely artificial market segmentation. The difference in production cost between their high end and low end chips is significantly smaller than the difference in sale price. They used to have much higher yields of the cheaper chips (which were just the good chips where not everything passed the tests, e.g. the FPU on the 486sx), but they quite often the yields don't fit with where their sales team wants to put the market segments and so they just cripple some chips before selling them. AMD does the same thing.

      This is just a way of more dynamically adjusting the segments, as well as making upgrades cheaper. Now, rather than buying a crippled chip and replacing it with a non-crippled chip later, you buy a crippled chip and undo the crippling in software. This, effectively, lets Intel sell you the same CPU twice.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  16. Re:What's next, Windows only CPUs? by tomz16 · · Score: 5, Funny

    EXACTLY! I'm new at this stuff too, and I think you are on to something. You just have to boolean the bit that controls the memory hash function pointer. Then you can probably just decrypt the parity bit endian stack!

  17. 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.

  18. How is this similar? by Ecuador · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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