qubitBecause they simply disabled chips where parts of it were allegedly unuseable and didn't try to cash in on "unlocking" them.

FordGT90ConceptBecause the GPU vendors don't release software that reenable those disabled portions because the GPU is instable if they do. Intel is releasing a product that is known to be capable of doing more but they decide not to just for monetary reasons. I've never heard of any company doing that before.

The equivilent would be like AMD and NVIDIA realasing GPUs with a second memory controller and double the RAM on the card but that memory controller (and thusly, the extra RAM wired to it) is disabled unless you pony up to enable it. Or AMD and NVIDIA releasing GPUs with the full count of functioning shader units but having disabled half of them unless you pay again to enable them.

AMD/NVIDIA GPUs out now have portions disabled, yes, but they do that because there is a quality assurance problem with the chips--they don't perform well enough to sell in a fully functional state. Intel/AMD also do the same thing for CPUs with your multiple clockspeeds and locked/unlocked multipliers.

What is unique about this is Intel knows those processors are perfectly good but decides consumers can't have access to it unless they they pay more later. This same tactic could be applied to use of the integrated GPU, memory controller functionality, cores, L3 cache, etc. I just hope it doesn't catch on or it will never end. You'll end up paying $100 up front for a processor and in order to get full functionality out of it, you'd have to pony up another $500 later.

No, the ability of the silicon isn't the only factor in disabling parts of a gpu or cpu these days. All manufacturers will disable;e perfectly good silicon these days to meet demand. That's why so many AMD's unlock.

The difference here is, Intel guaranties that unlock, but unfortunately, also charges for it.

pantherx12+ 1 to black hades post, to be able to do this they are ALREADY making a profit, probably a decent one as well.

So what is actually happening here is that you are NOT getting what you pay for, they are making it seem like you pay for "extra" but that isn't what it is at all, they are selling a deliberately crippled product and then charging people to make it work properly.

I.E like selling someone a kettle without the element and then going " that will be extra suka!"



again


100 should cover the entire cost of the chip, they've locked some of it to squeeze more money out of idiots.


It is not the same buying a product and then buying an extra for that product.


It's the same as buying a broken product and then being forced to pay to get it working properly.

No, it performs at the level of $100 out of the box. That's all that matters. You paid $100, and got $100 worth of performance. That's perfectly fair.

Now, that doesn't mean the upgrade price is fair. The upgraded price needs to match what it would cost to get the more powerful chip to begin with, plus maybe a couple bucks. So if the upgrade makes it equivalent to a $120, the upgrade should only be like $22. Overall, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept, it just depends on how the execute it.

Black HadesYes 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... ;)

See my point above. Not all disabled silicon is defective. All silicon manufacturers disable fully functioning silicon to meet market demands. Most low end hardware is not defective anymore, just purposely disabled to fit a market segment.

This is the point you and Panther seem to be missing.

This is the same exact thing, except they didn't permanently disable it, and give you the option of re-unlocking it.

This appeals to people that can't afford that $120 cpu right now, they can only afford the $100 cpu. So, they either buy a permanently locked $100 cpu, an unlockable $100 cpu with the same specs as the permanently locked one, or they don't buy a computer at all? What would you choose?

it is much more risky to oc on software than on bios.

Didn't miss that at all Will-e.

I know that, and yet still think what I think.

Won't go into detail again I clearly can't explain myself with written words.

pantherx12Didn't miss that at all Will-e.

I know that, and yet still think what I think.

Won't go into detail again I clearly can't explain myself with written words.

So then, just respond to this line, if you would:

Wile EThis appeals to people that can't afford that $120 cpu right now, they can only afford the $100 cpu. So, they either buy a permanently locked $100 cpu, an unlockable $100 cpu with the same specs as the permanently locked one, or they don't buy a computer at all? What would you choose?

I'll try one more time.

Basically the one that is $120 at the moment can obviously be sold at $100 considering they even selling the 100 one.

It's just Marketing, making higher tier hardware seem better value and making it seem like you get a cheap step up on low tier hardware, but the fact of the matter is it's not low tier hardware, it's the same chip as the 120 one, it's just so intel can sell the same product twice, even though it should be selling for $100 in the first instance.


I'm just useless at explaining with text guys, dyslexic like a champ, makes it hard.


I insist that this is different from current practices but lack the ability to explain why, so hopefully the pricing thing helped a little .

Panther, what do you think of the Sempron vs Athlon II X2 240 then? Should AMD be selling the Athlon 240 for $35 since they sell the identical (silicon wise w/ intentional disabling) Sempron 140 for that price? That's what your logic says.

Keep in mind unlocking is not something AMD ever intended to happen.

pantherx12I'll try one more time.

Basically the one that is $120 at the moment can obviously be sold at $100 considering they even selling the 100 one.

It's just Marketing, making higher tier hardware seem better value and making it seem like you get a cheap step up on low tier hardware, but the fact of the matter is it's not low tier hardware, it's the same chip as the 120 one, it's just so intel can sell the same product twice, even though it should be selling for $100 in the first instance.


I'm just useless at explaining with text guys, dyslexic like a champ, makes it hard.


I insist that this is different from current practices but lack the ability to explain why, so hopefully the pricing thing helped a little .

Don't get me wrong, I get your side entirely. If the $120 processor and $100 processor are costing Intel the same to manufacture, and they can sell it for $100 and still make a profit, then why not just sell the full featured version at $100 and make the customer happy.

Well, because they are a company and not Unicef, thats why. It is their job to maximize profits.

But the truth is we don't even know the reall process going on here. Think of it like this:

Intel is binning their silicon. A batch of silicon fails to meet the requirements to be an i3-530, so they throw it in the Pentium G6950 bin. Now, they are deciding to rebin that silicon, and if the L3 checks out and HT works, it is thrown in the G6951 bin and sold with the option to unlock the L3 and enable HT, if either of those test fail then it is thrown back in the G6950 bin.

So what if that is the case? What if these chips were never destined to be higher end i3-530s anyway? Would you rather they never re-did that binning to make sure the L3 was indeed functional and HT did indeed work? The processor would have been a $100 G6950 anyway.

The fact is we don't even know that these processor would have made it as a higher processor. We all are assuming that they would have.

pantherx12I'll try one more time.

Basically the one that is $120 at the moment can obviously be sold at $100 considering they even selling the 100 one.

I'll also try one more time.

EVERYONE does this. Those $100 AMD chips are actually disabled more expensive parts, and if they binned them, they could make a good portion of them into a faster part, but they don't.

Your argument is nonsense, really. Intel isn't, never has been, and never should be, obligated to sell you a 4 core cpu with Hyperthreading for $100 just because the part passed the binning tests.

And you still didn't answer my question.

Wile ENo, the ability of the silicon isn't the only factor in disabling parts of a gpu or cpu these days. All manufacturers will disable;e perfectly good silicon these days to meet demand. That's why so many AMD's unlock.

The difference here is, Intel guaranties that unlock, but unfortunately, also charges for it.

And that's what bothers me. The entire industry might move in that direction.

FordGT90ConceptAnd that's what bothers me. The entire industry might move in that direction.

If a crack comes out, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. :D

Somehow I suspect a crack wouldn't be easy. We're talking about software that's running on hardware made by the same company that, not to mention, made HDCP which took almost a decade to break and it is a hardware break at that. The odds are pretty poor...unless they really don't put much effort in to it.

Knowing what we know, I'd say there is a 50/50 chance of it being cracked within 10 years. I would say that diminishes to 25/75 by 20 years and 1/99 by 30 years.

FordGT90ConceptSomehow I suspect a crack wouldn't be easy. We're talking about software that's running on hardware made by the same company that, not to mention, made HDCP which took almost a decade to break and it is a hardware break at that. The odds are pretty poor...unless they really don't put much effort in to it.

Knowing what we know, I'd say there is a 50/50 chance of it being cracked within 10 years. I would say that diminishes to 25/75 by 20 years and 1/99 by 30 years.

It's a bios flash or tpm. Once you apply the update, it works OS independent, and is permanent.

I bet it's cracked in a couple weeks.

Wile EIt's a bios flash or tpm. Once you apply the update, it works OS independent, and is permanent.

I bet it's cracked in a couple weeks.

I bet you it is just a hidden BIOS setting that gets switched when the update is installed.

And I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing companies like ASUS allow you to access that switch somehow through their BIOS.

But then again that is more hope than what I think will really happen since I know Intel too well.

arroyoIt would be nice to know that your CPU has unlockable potential. I would be so happy to know, that for 50$ my Q9550 could have turbo technology or 2 more cores. It's just about creating right products for low budget by locking features of better products.

LOL. Seems like people would buy ec that intel has for sale :D

Still this doesnt make it ripoff for whatever reason. You go there buy cheap processor and they lure you to buy some sticker-code that you inconveniently must keep somewhere and use everytime you clean installation. Would it work on all-winos or non-winos situations? It's could be simple customer ripoff just on basis that now intel doesnt need to engage in chip price wars but to lure gullible non-tech savvy customers to buying some obsolete chip and then pay premium as they bought fully featured chip year ago.

I wonder if that soft will implement bug-feature that ghosted backups wont re-enable chip full functionality :p It would really be great to see webshow feat. intels nuisance-chip-upgrade aint that sweet after all.

ok lets see, will it unlock permanently? How if we put on other board? In my opinion it wouldnt b wise 2 sold chip like that, its like (what we say? Kinda cheated maybe) i rather choose the AMD does

@vagxtr

You only have to use the unlock code once. It's set permanently in the hardware after that.

And I agree, it is a ripoff to lure computer illiterate buyers.

qubitYou only have to use the unlock code once. It's set permanently in the hardware after that.

Then i misunderstood the story :o I thought you have to keep The Code software renders for you after inputting The Key you bought from official reseller

The service works by the purchase of an upgrade key that the user has to feed into the software, which is then verified by Intel's activation server, following successful verification, the software unlocks the processor's features. This is a one-time process, portable between software reinstallations.

... well thnx for explain. This seems "fair enough" :D

qubit@vagxtr

You only have to use the unlock code once. It's set permanently in the hardware after that.

And I agree, it is a ripoff to lure computer illiterate buyers.

It's not a ripoff unless they price gouge for the unlock. We can't judge it's value without knowing the costs, now can we?

Personally, i think this is a GREAT move by Intel. Why? Because more of the "sales margin" goes to Intel rather than to distribution and the retailer. I guess you could argue it is abuse of the distribution network.

Take two processors, A and X. A = retail $100 and X = retail $1000

What slice of the cake (or another way, what costs) are associated with distribution, wholesale and retail? Let's say it is 40%. So Intel gets $60 for processor A and $600 for processor X, and $40 is "shared" in the channel for A and $400 in the channel for X.

Now think of this new retail model.

Both A and X sell for $100. Intel gets $60 and the channel gets $40. Now consider the "upgrade" of locked X to unlocked X. Intel gets $900 and the channel gets zero.

BLXXDY MARVELOUS financial concept by Intel. Cost is the same to the end-user (assuming fair pricing) but Intel gets a larger slice.

And I do agree with Intel charging a bit more than the "fair" price... since the user has an "option" and an "option", which has an intrinsic benefit, should come with some associated cost/price. Hence Intel sells the processor plus sells an option plus takes more of the margin. Well done Intel.

It is also beneficial to system builders and end-corporate purchasers. They dont need to design, build or market hundreds of processor editions. Just one. Then as the client determines, just "upgrade" the relevant machines. Example: Big multinational buys 10,000 computers. Once in place, the manager of the department can determine who gets the upgraded processor. Clearly MS Office users dont need it, e.g. secretaries and support staff, but some do. The decision becomes "local" based on "need" rather than having to be predetermined Communist style.

Wile EIt's not a ripoff unless they price gouge for the unlock. We can't judge it's value without knowing the costs, now can we?

This point has been discussed from lots of angles on this thread and the general consensus is that it's a rippoff, even without hard numbers and I happen to agree with it.

qubitThis point has been discussed from lots of angles on this thread and the general consensus is that it's a rippoff, even without hard numbers and I happen to agree with it.

Consensus =/= truth or fact.

How is it a ripoff? If the cpu costs $100 up front, and later down the road, you pay $25 and you get the performance of a $120 cpu, that sounds like a good deal to me, especially if you can't afford the $120 cpu up front. You paid $5 for the convenience of not having to sell your cpu and buy a new one. That sounds like the exact opposite of a ripoff to me.

This really isn't bad thing for anyone. Instead of buying completely new CPU someone is gonna get a little upgrade easily. You can still buy what you want immediately if you wish so. Intel is happy, the guy getting easy upgrade is happy. Win-win.

e: And I would gladly pay a little to up multiplier on the 920 to same as it is in 950. Sadly I would have to get completely new CPU now so that really isn't worth it.

Wile EIt's not a ripoff unless they price gouge for the unlock. We can't judge it's value without knowing the costs, now can we?

Its $50, or at least that is what Best Buy was selling them for. And if you look at it compared to what the $50 gets you up front, it is a rip-off. Basically it is unlocking to an i3-520(if it existsed) since the clock speed would be 2.8GHz. But for only $15 more up front, you could just go with an i3-540.

But if you look at the cost for the average consumer to upgrade their processor, someone that isn't going to be doing it themselves, it makes sense. Because Geek Squad charges ~$50 just to open the machine up and swap the processor on top of the cost of the new processor.

Have you guys thought about laptops? GREAT for them too

Next up? A program to unlock hyperthreading on Lynnfield i5s? Would be interested in that :D