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:

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.


Okay, that's actually an explanation. It thought there was a substantial money difference. I thought it was something like a CD player in a car that's locked, but since they can't sell you the player for free, you still have to pay for it anyway.

But still, offering the unlocking as a card seems silly. Unlike a Wii or Microsoft points card, there is only so much unlocking you can do.



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
Soleron on 20 September 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:
...


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


You're making an incorrect assumption. That used to to be true, but since 2006 almost all Intel processors have had no defects in that sense - the majority of chips could be sold at the top spec. Intel disables cache and features almost excelusively because they want to segment the market rather than because they are defective.

In the case of VT, VPro and HT, it's impossible that they can be defective. I guarantee you that Intel is disabling them even though they are not defective on any chip.



NJ5 on 20 September 2010

I'm now wondering two things:

1- Will this be pirated?

2- Even if it's not fully pirated, might it be possible to track these CPUs  by their unique ID? Not a good thing from a privacy standpoint.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Zlejedi on 20 September 2010
Squilliam said:
NJ5 said:

It's not the same thing as paid DLC which is already on the disc, since in that case you are paying for the development of the DLC (putting it on the disc or not doesn't increase the costs).

In this case, the real cost is in manufacturing the hardware, which means part of the chip you buy is wasted even though it's working perfectly well.

It just all seems a bit dodgy and cheap from Intel's part, I don't really like it.

They have always disabled parts of chips when they have worked. The difference here is you can pay to unlock them.

This. I wonder if all those people bitching about this realize that for example all the Pentium G and i3 5x0 as well as i5 6x0 cpu are coming from same line and are diffrent only by bins and/or multiplier that was applied to them.

Imho that's very good idea to save people time and effort when upgrading.



PROUD MEMBER OF THE PSP RPG FAN CLUB

SnakeEyez on 20 September 2010

I dont blame them, so many gamers buy crap DLC thats already on the disc, so Intel wanted to get in on some of that action. 



Around the Network
greenmedic88 on 20 September 2010
Zlejedi said:
Squilliam said:
NJ5 said:

It's not the same thing as paid DLC which is already on the disc, since in that case you are paying for the development of the DLC (putting it on the disc or not doesn't increase the costs).

In this case, the real cost is in manufacturing the hardware, which means part of the chip you buy is wasted even though it's working perfectly well.

It just all seems a bit dodgy and cheap from Intel's part, I don't really like it.

They have always disabled parts of chips when they have worked. The difference here is you can pay to unlock them.

This. I wonder if all those people bitching about this realize that for example all the Pentium G and i3 5x0 as well as i5 6x0 cpu are coming from same line and are diffrent only by bins and/or multiplier that was applied to them.

Imho that's very good idea to save people time and effort when upgrading.

This is essentially the core of the "processor upgrade" program. It's nothing new; consumers have been paying more for additional multipliers and additional cache for decades.

Price bracking for CPUs is often the difference between a 20x multiplier and a 22x multiplier; purely an artificial constraint that amounts to a pretty significant difference in price.

But the difference is that an activation upgrade system provides a better option for upgrading CPUs than physically removing a chip, selling it and then buying and installing a new chip. It is a good idea.



NJ5 on 20 September 2010
greenmedic88 said:
Zlejedi said:
Squilliam said:
NJ5 said:

It's not the same thing as paid DLC which is already on the disc, since in that case you are paying for the development of the DLC (putting it on the disc or not doesn't increase the costs).

In this case, the real cost is in manufacturing the hardware, which means part of the chip you buy is wasted even though it's working perfectly well.

It just all seems a bit dodgy and cheap from Intel's part, I don't really like it.

They have always disabled parts of chips when they have worked. The difference here is you can pay to unlock them.

This. I wonder if all those people bitching about this realize that for example all the Pentium G and i3 5x0 as well as i5 6x0 cpu are coming from same line and are diffrent only by bins and/or multiplier that was applied to them.

Imho that's very good idea to save people time and effort when upgrading.

This is essentially the core of the "processor upgrade" program. It's nothing new; consumers have been paying more for additional multipliers and additional cache for decades.

Price bracking for CPUs is often the difference between a 20x multiplier and a 22x multiplier; purely an artificial constraint that amounts to a pretty significant difference in price.

But the difference is that an activation upgrade system provides a better option for upgrading CPUs than physically removing a chip, selling it and then buying and installing a new chip. It is a good idea.


Yeah it doesn't sound bad if you put it that way, but I'm still concerned about the loss of privacy. They are very likely using a unique ID on the CPU for authenticating the unlocking process, which means Intel (and trojans, if any program can get the ID out) can invade your privacy by tracking a CPU.

I'm sure police in all countries (and other government-controlled agencies, to "keep us safe") will love to get Intel's help to track down where a computer is no matter how much you format it or what anonymizers you use.

Get me Hollywood on the line, I'm sure they'll love this idea for a script.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

LordTheNightKnight on 20 September 2010
Soleron said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
...


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


You're making an incorrect assumption. That used to to be true, but since 2006 almost all Intel processors have had no defects in that sense - the majority of chips could be sold at the top spec. Intel disables cache and features almost excelusively because they want to segment the market rather than because they are defective.

In the case of VT, VPro and HT, it's impossible that they can be defective. I guarantee you that Intel is disabling them even though they are not defective on any chip.


I already stood corrected. See the post right above yours.



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
Zlejedi said:
Squilliam said:
NJ5 said:

It's not the same thing as paid DLC which is already on the disc, since in that case you are paying for the development of the DLC (putting it on the disc or not doesn't increase the costs).

In this case, the real cost is in manufacturing the hardware, which means part of the chip you buy is wasted even though it's working perfectly well.

It just all seems a bit dodgy and cheap from Intel's part, I don't really like it.

They have always disabled parts of chips when they have worked. The difference here is you can pay to unlock them.

This. I wonder if all those people bitching about this realize that for example all the Pentium G and i3 5x0 as well as i5 6x0 cpu are coming from same line and are diffrent only by bins and/or multiplier that was applied to them.

Imho that's very good idea to save people time and effort when upgrading.

Yeah its a pretty good idea. You just have to realise what you're already buying before you know the real repurcussions (spelling?) of this.



Tease.

Zlejedi on 21 September 2010
NJ5 said:
greenmedic88 said:
Zlejedi said:
Squilliam said:
NJ5 said:

It's not the same thing as paid DLC which is already on the disc, since in that case you are paying for the development of the DLC (putting it on the disc or not doesn't increase the costs).

In this case, the real cost is in manufacturing the hardware, which means part of the chip you buy is wasted even though it's working perfectly well.

It just all seems a bit dodgy and cheap from Intel's part, I don't really like it.

They have always disabled parts of chips when they have worked. The difference here is you can pay to unlock them.

This. I wonder if all those people bitching about this realize that for example all the Pentium G and i3 5x0 as well as i5 6x0 cpu are coming from same line and are diffrent only by bins and/or multiplier that was applied to them.

Imho that's very good idea to save people time and effort when upgrading.

This is essentially the core of the "processor upgrade" program. It's nothing new; consumers have been paying more for additional multipliers and additional cache for decades.

Price bracking for CPUs is often the difference between a 20x multiplier and a 22x multiplier; purely an artificial constraint that amounts to a pretty significant difference in price.

But the difference is that an activation upgrade system provides a better option for upgrading CPUs than physically removing a chip, selling it and then buying and installing a new chip. It is a good idea.


Yeah it doesn't sound bad if you put it that way, but I'm still concerned about the loss of privacy. They are very likely using a unique ID on the CPU for authenticating the unlocking process, which means Intel (and trojans, if any program can get the ID out) can invade your privacy by tracking a CPU.

I'm sure police in all countries (and other government-controlled agencies, to "keep us safe") will love to get Intel's help to track down where a computer is no matter how much you format it or what anonymizers you use.

Get me Hollywood on the line, I'm sure they'll love this idea for a script.

Hmm unless you live disconnected from internet they can track you with perfect accuracy anyway.And formating is not gonna help just make it more expensive for them. Hell short of shooting HDD with .45 or shotgun or bathing hdd in proper acid it's very hard to make your information completly gone.



PROUD MEMBER OF THE PSP RPG FAN CLUB