By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC - Intel wants to charge $50 to unlock stuff your CPU can already do

LordTheNightKnight on 20 September 2010
Squilliam said:

I suppose it actually makes sense in a screwed up way. Rather than selling a laptop with X processor and a laptop with X Y processor. They can instead simply sell the laptop with X and let people unlock to X Y. You were always buying a processor capable of X Y when you bought an X laptop, you just could never enable the Y. Depending on how they charge for this it may lead to cheaper performance laptops as they tend to whack on quite a large manufacturer margin as you go up the range.


The problem with that is the tech is already on the chip, and you still have to sell it at a profit.

So it's essentially paying full price for less on the chip.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network
Squilliam on 20 September 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:
Squilliam said:

I suppose it actually makes sense in a screwed up way. Rather than selling a laptop with X processor and a laptop with X Y processor. They can instead simply sell the laptop with X and let people unlock to X Y. You were always buying a processor capable of X Y when you bought an X laptop, you just could never enable the Y. Depending on how they charge for this it may lead to cheaper performance laptops as they tend to whack on quite a large manufacturer margin as you go up the range.


The problem with that is the tech is already on the chip, and you still have to sell it at a profit.

So it's essentially paying full price for less on the chip.


Nope. Its the same as before.

Before: They sell you a chip which is cut down but you can't restore the features.

Now: They sell you a chip which is cut down but you can restore the features.



Tease.

LordTheNightKnight on 20 September 2010
Squilliam said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Squilliam said:

I suppose it actually makes sense in a screwed up way. Rather than selling a laptop with X processor and a laptop with X Y processor. They can instead simply sell the laptop with X and let people unlock to X Y. You were always buying a processor capable of X Y when you bought an X laptop, you just could never enable the Y. Depending on how they charge for this it may lead to cheaper performance laptops as they tend to whack on quite a large manufacturer margin as you go up the range.


The problem with that is the tech is already on the chip, and you still have to sell it at a profit.

So it's essentially paying full price for less on the chip.


Nope. Its the same as before.

Before: They sell you a chip which is cut down but you can't restore the features.

Now: They sell you a chip which is cut down but you can restore the features.


Those features were defective, so they can't restore them anyway.

Plus you're missing my point. If you want a less powerful chip, you would save more money actually buying a less powerful chip. You would be ripped off buying a chip like this, as the features you don't intend to use still need to be paid for in order for the chip to make a profit.

So don't tell me it's the same as before.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Squilliam on 20 September 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:
Squilliam said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Squilliam said:

I suppose it actually makes sense in a screwed up way. Rather than selling a laptop with X processor and a laptop with X Y processor. They can instead simply sell the laptop with X and let people unlock to X Y. You were always buying a processor capable of X Y when you bought an X laptop, you just could never enable the Y. Depending on how they charge for this it may lead to cheaper performance laptops as they tend to whack on quite a large manufacturer margin as you go up the range.


The problem with that is the tech is already on the chip, and you still have to sell it at a profit.

So it's essentially paying full price for less on the chip.


Nope. Its the same as before.

Before: They sell you a chip which is cut down but you can't restore the features.

Now: They sell you a chip which is cut down but you can restore the features.


Those features were defective, so they can't restore them anyway.

Plus you're missing my point. If you want a less powerful chip, you would save more money actually buying a less powerful chip. You would be ripped off buying a chip like this, as the features you don't intend to use still need to be paid for in order for the chip to make a profit.

So don't tell me it's the same as before.

It is the same as before. Like I said, it doesn't cost any more for them to make and sell a chip which has those features or those features are disabled. The difference is price discrimination, I.E. you want more you pay more because Intel are a near monopoly. This is just the same effectively as buying a Windows Home Premium PC and upgrading it to Professional.

They could sell every single chip with the unlocked features if they wanted to however they think they will make more profit this way.



Tease.

leatherhat on 20 September 2010

And consumer protection keeps on collapsing



ǝןdɯıs ʇı dǝǝʞ oʇ ǝʞıן ı ʍouʞ noʎ 

Ask me about being an elitist jerk

Time for hype

Around the Network
LordTheNightKnight on 20 September 2010
Squilliam said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Squilliam said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Squilliam said:

I suppose it actually makes sense in a screwed up way. Rather than selling a laptop with X processor and a laptop with X Y processor. They can instead simply sell the laptop with X and let people unlock to X Y. You were always buying a processor capable of X Y when you bought an X laptop, you just could never enable the Y. Depending on how they charge for this it may lead to cheaper performance laptops as they tend to whack on quite a large manufacturer margin as you go up the range.


The problem with that is the tech is already on the chip, and you still have to sell it at a profit.

So it's essentially paying full price for less on the chip.


Nope. Its the same as before.

Before: They sell you a chip which is cut down but you can't restore the features.

Now: They sell you a chip which is cut down but you can restore the features.


Those features were defective, so they can't restore them anyway.

Plus you're missing my point. If you want a less powerful chip, you would save more money actually buying a less powerful chip. You would be ripped off buying a chip like this, as the features you don't intend to use still need to be paid for in order for the chip to make a profit.

So don't tell me it's the same as before.

It is the same as before. Like I said, it doesn't cost any more for them to make and sell a chip which has those features or those features are disabled. The difference is price discrimination, I.E. you want more you pay more because Intel are a near monopoly. This is just the same effectively as buying a Windows Home Premium PC and upgrading it to Professional.

They could sell every single chip with the unlocked features if they wanted to however they think they will make more profit this way.


Windows is software, not hardware, so that is not applicable. All it takes it downloading more data. You cannot download more parts to a CPU.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Squilliam on 20 September 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:
Squilliam said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Squilliam said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Squilliam said:

I suppose it actually makes sense in a screwed up way. Rather than selling a laptop with X processor and a laptop with X Y processor. They can instead simply sell the laptop with X and let people unlock to X Y. You were always buying a processor capable of X Y when you bought an X laptop, you just could never enable the Y. Depending on how they charge for this it may lead to cheaper performance laptops as they tend to whack on quite a large manufacturer margin as you go up the range.


The problem with that is the tech is already on the chip, and you still have to sell it at a profit.

So it's essentially paying full price for less on the chip.


Nope. Its the same as before.

Before: They sell you a chip which is cut down but you can't restore the features.

Now: They sell you a chip which is cut down but you can restore the features.


Those features were defective, so they can't restore them anyway.

Plus you're missing my point. If you want a less powerful chip, you would save more money actually buying a less powerful chip. You would be ripped off buying a chip like this, as the features you don't intend to use still need to be paid for in order for the chip to make a profit.

So don't tell me it's the same as before.

It is the same as before. Like I said, it doesn't cost any more for them to make and sell a chip which has those features or those features are disabled. The difference is price discrimination, I.E. you want more you pay more because Intel are a near monopoly. This is just the same effectively as buying a Windows Home Premium PC and upgrading it to Professional.

They could sell every single chip with the unlocked features if they wanted to however they think they will make more profit this way.


Windows is software, not hardware, so that is not applicable. All it takes it downloading more data. You cannot download more parts to a CPU.

When I bought Windows 7 there was basic, premium, professional and ultimate on the same disc.

When you buy this there will be basic and premium on the same die.

no difference.

how are discs made? Fabs.

how are cpus made? Fabs.

no difference.

Whats the major cost in a software disc? Research and development

Whats the major cost in a CPU? Research and development

no difference.

Who makes the software? A near monopoly.

Who makes the CPU? A near monopoly.

no difference.



Tease.

LordTheNightKnight on 20 September 2010
Squilliam said:

When I bought Windows 7 there was basic, premium, professional and ultimate on the same disc.

When you buy this there will be basic and premium on the same die.

no difference.

how are discs made? Fabs.

how are cpus made? Fabs.

no difference.

Whats the major cost in a software disc? Research and development

Whats the major cost in a CPU? Research and development

no difference.

Who makes the software? A near monopoly.

Who makes the CPU? A near monopoly.

no difference.


1. I wasn't aware that all of them were on the same disc.

2. So what about Windows? Copy/pasting the data is free. The disc is otherwise identical. Putting components on a CPU is not. A smaller cache instead of a locked cache is of a different make. Thus they can't compare.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

LordTheNightKnight on 20 September 2010

Stupid "Done" button.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Squilliam on 20 September 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:
Squilliam said:

When I bought Windows 7 there was basic, premium, professional and ultimate on the same disc.

When you buy this there will be basic and premium on the same die.

no difference.

how are discs made? Fabs.

how are cpus made? Fabs.

no difference.

Whats the major cost in a software disc? Research and development

Whats the major cost in a CPU? Research and development

no difference.

Who makes the software? A near monopoly.

Who makes the CPU? A near monopoly.

no difference.


1. I wasn't aware that all of them were on the same disc.

2. So what about Windows? Copy/pasting the data is free. The disc is otherwise identical. Putting components on a CPU is not. A smaller cache instead of a locked cache is of a different make. Thus they can't compare.

Its cheaper to design one CPU and then cut it down than it is to create two CPU designs. In this case they would have to design one CPU to have hyper-threading and 4MB of cache and another with only 3MB of cache and no hyperthreading. This costs more than the <10mm^2 difference in die size between the two hypotherical models.

So in this case the distinction is as arbitrary as the distinction between two different WIndows versions. That same die is the delivery mechanism for at least 3-4 SKUs which range from the bottom end all the way up to the lower mid range in performance.



Tease.