Black HadesYeah, this whole scheme of theirs is absurd.
But I restrain myself from saying How could it possibly work in their favor?

They're just opening themselves up vulnerable to piracy schemes. That's the only real difference.

honestly I dont see how some people missed that this is an elaborate price gouging scheme.

proc A $100

Proc B 120

upgrade $50

proc B new price 150

seriously? Their making it look like you have more options by making a cool spread sheet that shows more processors on the market. But its their software so they charge what they want, and you just happen to be poor. If that isnt capitalizing idk what is.

If DRM is broken on games before they are released how long do they expect this to last before there are numerous sites with the unlocks.

We break PS3, BIOS, smart phones, Xbox, etc..... how long do they think this will be valid for.



The other side of this is, lets say they sell a set of CPU's to a school with the intent of being able to upgrade, however a certain percentage of those corrupt data due to issues with the cache that is unlocked, or due to other die defects. How long before they get their asses sued off for selling known defective products.

What's next Intel? A hardware hypervisor to prevent overclocking unless we give you another 50$? :laugh:
*punches himself in the mouth*

animal007ukStupid idea i for one wont be buying this CPU. $50 for an unlock of something is a bloody rip of if its already built into the cpu. Hope someone cracks it soon lol.

Every processor with lower specs, be it a lower cache or missing features, has those features built in, they are just disabled. For example, the Pentium G6950 is specced as 3MB of cache and no HT. However, it uses a standard Clarkdale core, so it really does have 4MB and the ability to use HT, but Intel disabled it. AMD does the same thing with their processors.

They used to do this so they could sell defective processors, they just disable what is defect and sell it as a Celeron/Sempron or whatever they want to call it. However, manufacturing processes have gotten to the point where most of the time this is done instead to simply offer products to different market segments.

Personnally, I think it is a good idea on Intels part, but I think $50 is a little expensive. But for a standard user that doesn't know how to change their own processor, it actually isn't that bad of a deal.

Also, look at what the upgrade actually gets you. You go from a Pentium G6951 which is 2.8GHz w/ 3MB Cache and no-HT, and you are unlocking the cache to 4MB and enabling HT, turning it into essentially an i3-520(if there was such a thing), but the i3-530 is only $15 more and it is clocked higher. But it would still cost more to actually upgrade from a G6951 to an i3-530 since taking in to have it done would cost at least $50 in labor. This upgrade might not make sense to us, because we know how to swap out processors, but for a standard computer user that doesn't even know how to change a fan or add RAM, it makes sense...of course it also won't make much of a difference either...

And the people that are going to "crack" this are wasting their time, because anyone that would probably use the crack would probably just spend the $15 up front to get a better processor than what the crack gives in the end.

This is awesome! Maybe they can start charging us for CPU time too!! Or better yet, how about they charge us proportionate to the number of non-Intel-compiled programs we have. Hmmm... I got it now, how about they pay me so I don't gnaw off my arm while I scream and run around hitting myself in the head with a fry pan (which I do on Tuesdays and Thursdays anyway).

**** Intel.

I like the idea if done right. Because each time i build a system i always find that i don't have enough money so if i could upgrade without fucking around removing a CPU cooler and mobo is a good thing for me. How ever this looks like more lame than any thing good although don't mind paying a little extra but it's not as if it unlocks cores.

Like whats been said already there be cracks for it sooner or later but what worrys me if a virus could mess around with your CPU without you even knowing before it's to late.

Black HadesWhat's next Intel? A hardware hypervisor to prevent overclocking unless we give you another 50$ :laugh:

The worst part is that this can only escalate to totally ridiculous. Im talking about price for one. I doubt this will be $50 forever. Not to mention they will only develop it further. such as want the unlock? sure program needs to be installed all the time. if uninstalled proc is downgraded. program calls home. maybe even a yearly fee depending on how bad piracy hits this. I mean the sky is the limit. and i will jump ship before my CPU starts calling home to "validate" itws a peice of hardware I install it it works. If i need to be connected to the internet to get what i paid for I will rage. Lets not forget all the fuck wits that will totally make off with this. I can see craigslist and B/S/T sections all over the net full of scamers selling these chips but listing them as something else and forgetting to "mention" you need to buy the upgrade after purchase to get what was originally posted.

Best bit:

All the Yahoo questions that go "Can I download a faster Pentiums processor?" will now have to be answered "Yes."

It completely baffles me how some people are missing the point here : /

pantherx12It completely baffles me how some people are missing the point here : /

the only point i see is intel just found another way to rip people off, am i missing something? :rolleyes:

Phxprovostthe only point i see is intel just found another way to rip people off, am i missing something? :rolleyes:

No, but that seems to be what some people are missing :laugh:

Phxprovostthe only point i see is intel just found another way to rip people off, am i missing something? :rolleyes:

Ripping them off how?

You aren't paying for these feature when you buy the original processor, so paying to unlock them later is hardly being ripped off. If you want those feature you pay for them, either by buying a better processor or software unlocking them on your current.

newtekie1Ripping them off how?

You aren't paying for these feature when you buy the original processor, so paying to unlock them later is hardly being ripped off. If you want those feature you pay for them, either by buying a better processor or software unlocking them on your current.

A better processor presumes somebody did x+1 (at least) extra effort to produce that "better processor" for your y+50$. Else you're just notifying the whole world you're screwing them on a daily basis. Not that we're not aware hehe.

You bought the damn thing, it's in your hands every molecule of silicone is yours, in the case where intel is holding out part of it for ransom then it's just your right to resort in a "lex talionis" manner (piracy comes to mind).

newtekie1Ripping them off how?

You aren't paying for these feature when you buy the original processor, so paying to unlock them later is hardly being ripped off. If you want those feature you pay for them, either by buying a better processor or software unlocking them on your current.

if you cant see it i don't know how to explain it to you, i for one am not in the habit of buying something only to have someone sell me the rest of the features on the object i just bought.

Black HadesA better processor presumes somebody did x+1 (at least) extra effort to produce that "better processor" for your y+50$. Else you're just notifying the whole world you're screwing them on a daily basis. Not that we're not aware hehe.

You bought the damn thing, it's in your hands every molecule of silicone is yours, in the case where intel is holding out part of it for ransom then it's just your right to resort in a "lex talionis" manner (piracy comes to mind).

What do you think better processor are? They are the same as the worse processor, it has been this way for years, no extra effort is put into producing the better processors.

You have not paid for the features, so they are not enabled, when you buy a processor you buy a feature set, not just the physical product. You pay for the clock speed, you pay for the features. They are all already there, an i3-530 can do the clock speed of an i5-540, but you didn't pay for that clock speed so you don't get it. Are you saying that a person buying an i3-530 should get the same clock speeds as an i5-660? They are the same silicon, you paid for it, so why shouldn't you bet getting the exact same performance and features?

Phxprovostif you cant see it i don't know how to explain it to you, i for one am not in the habit of buying something only to have someone sell me the rest of the features on the object i just bought.

Well, you've got a 940, with a DDR3 memory controller that has been disabled. Wouldn't it be nice if AMD sold a similar upgrade card to enable the DDR3 support? Would you buy it? Do you feel ripped off now knowing the processor you bought has disabled features?

newtekie1Ripping them off how?

You aren't paying for these feature when you buy the original processor, so paying to unlock them later is hardly being ripped off. If you want those feature you pay for them, either by buying a better processor or software unlocking them on your current.

sure its ripping you off. Even if you dont want the upgrade and dont buy it you buy a better processor.

like lets look at this again.

PROC A same as proc B

PROC A $100

PROC B $120

Upgrade $50

diffirential $30

but you decide not to upgrade but you want better so you grab proc C which is $130 and slightely better than proc B which is basically what your proc A basically is. Now your paying $130 for an upgrade which is only slightly better than what you have to begin with.

Granted you can pay the $50 and get slightly less than proc C. I also understand that you get what you pay for with proc C as its technically a new proc. HOWEVER you are basing your arguments off of intelligent people. TPU users are obviously not going to be looking into this as a viable upgrade solution. However uninformed people are not going to see this. This is not a deal for them. this is not a deal for anybody. This makes all intel chips a money pit as I seriously doubt this will only apply to lowend chips for so long. Sooner or later processors of the extreme level will have this. and when they change market segments thats when it will get worse. Low end upgrade applies to XXX procs $50 midend support list XXX upgrade $70 highend unlock support list XXX $100 Noit to mention if they ever make this call home or need to be installed they can implement shit like if the program detects the chip is running out of frequency range the system shuts down. or the proc is locked, or the BIOS is reset to defaults and the next reboot everything is stock because they include in the EULA that OC is not supported what now?

newtekie1What do you think better processor are? They are the same as the worse processor, it has been this way for years, no extra effort is put into producing the better processors.

Yes we all know that (presumably). but they mostly sell crippled ones as Celerons or whatnot. It's one thing to sell low binned hardware so that you dont get 0 revenue from a defective i7 950 and it's another thing altogether to purposely disable working parts, not flawed or damaged elements.

I fully support the 1st strategy binning and all that it implies. Because it helps the chip maker get money from otherwise compromised items.
I do not support negative marketing strategies that say We'd rather let it rot than give it to you for free, we're making lots of money anyway. It's there it's in your hands therefore you own it.

What if say LG did that with it's LCD TV's? Oh you can only view movies up to 720p. Your TV can output 1080p but it will cost you extra... ;)

I think there's going to be another hiccup with these.

Say I buy a Dual-Core CPU that can be unlocked to a Hex-Core.
The Warranty is; say; 2 years.
I own the CPU 2 years and 3 months, purchase the CPU upgrade, and then find 1 of the cores is defective.
Where would this leave me? Exactly where Intel would want me - looking to buy another CPU.

I don't think they'll ever release a dual-core to be unlocked to a hex-core. These will only be minor upgrades.

Black HadesYes we all know that (presumably). but they mostly sell crippled ones as Celerons or whatnot. It's one thing to sell crippled hardware so that you dont get 0 revenue from a defective i7 950 and it's another thing altogether to purposely disable working parts, not flawed or damaged elements.

I fully support the 1st strategy binning and all that it implies. Because it helps the chip maker.
I do not support negative marketing strategies that say We'd rather let it rot than give it to you for free, we're making lots of money anyway. It's there it's in your hands therefore you own it.

What if say LG did that with it's LCD TV's? Oh you can only view movies up to 720p. Your TV can output 1080p but it will cost you extra... ;)

But at this point, the number of actually defective products is next to 0, so the first strategy doesn't work anymore.

If they didn't use the second, we would have to pick between 4 or 5 processor and that is it, there wouldn't be cheap processors, they would all be expensive. Intel's processr lineup would look like this: i5-680@$300, i7-875@$330, i7-960@$560, and i7-980X@$1000 because any processor below those would be the cut down processors that you say shouldn't exists.

We're not talking about TVs, we are talking about processors. What is the alternative to this strategy? Most of you seem to think the alternative is that you would just have these features to begine with but you wouldn't! If this strategy did not exists, then these features would stay permanently disabled because the G6951 processor isn't supposed to have them.

newtekie1But at this point, the number of actually defective products is next to 0, so the first strategy doesn't work anymore.

If they didn't use the second, we would have to pick between 4 or 5 processor and that is it, there wouldn't be cheap processors, they would all be expensive. Intel's processr lineup would look like this: i5-680@$300, i7-875@$330, i7-960@$560, and i7-980X@$1000 because any processor below those would be the cut down processors that you say shouldn't exists.

Oh they'd be forced to sell processors to what they're actualy worth? A tragedy indeed.
I'll shed a single tear for Intel then it's off to AMD.. one single tear.

It's impossible to leave the budget and middle segment uncovered, they'd be forced to sell good procesors at competitive prices. that's the alternative strategy as dreadfull as it sounds for them.

DanishDevilI don't think they'll ever release a dual-core to be unlocked to a hex-core. These will only be minor upgrades.

You know what I mean though? If I update after the warranty has expired, and it ends up dud, they're going to try every trick they can to worm out of reimbursing.

Black HadesOh they'd be forced to sell processors to what they're actualy worth? A tragedy indeed.
I'll shed a single tear for Intel then it's off to AMD.. one single tear.

You realize AMD already does the same thing right? The only difference is they don't offer the option to enable what is disabled(at least not officially, and they've actually tried to stop the ability to enable the disabled features, but motherboard manufacturers are smart little bastards).

Black HadesIt's impossible to leave the budget and middle segment uncovered, they'd be forced to sell good procesors at competitive prices. that's the alternative strategy as dreadfull as it sounds for them.

They already sell good processors at competitive prices. If they were forced to sell the full processors and not disable anything or cripple them in any way, yes we might see lower prices for a while, but then AMD would go under in a heartbeat and the prices would skyrocket. Why? Because if they were forced to sell the 980X at $300, do you think many would buy an AMD x6 that doesn't hold a candle to it? If the 875K was being sold at $195 do you think anyone would be buying X4 965s?

^^ AMD tries to fill a certain market segment with it's x3 cores. It is losing money in a way by disabling a certain number of functional cores but a lot are still defective as proven by many enthusiasts.
Also it doesnt charge you extra for a core. it's good publicity (that's a change for AMD) kind of like sweepstakes. "Get a x3 core and you just may get an extra core free" that's.

Besides dont compare Intel prices to AMD ones.
You are right however, if this was an ultra competitive market nobody could afford schemes like the one pulled by Intel.

newtekie1You realize AMD already does the same thing right? The only difference is they don't offer the option to enable what is disabled(at least not officially, and they've actually tried to stop the ability to enable the disabled features, but motherboard manufacturers are smart little bastards).

right. but that isnt guaranteed some of those cores are actually bad. Their are errors in manufacturing. Thats why AMD does it. its not like they pick and choose the cores single handidly. If one core on a wafer didnt make the cut the whole batch gets knocked down on the list. You might wind up lucky with a good one but they sure dont market them as unlockable cores.