CPU Intel charge extra (50$) to unlock CPU features of an already paid processor

Given that this seems to be specific to certain systems (e.g. the cards mention Gateway machines) what are the odds that the manufacturer has agreed to this and is receiving a portion of the fees paid?

 

Isn't it that what really happens is that the extra feature is broken so it's locked out. And as demand for the lower end is higher, they simply not make that component, where in both cases they money. Or to add another case, maybe the produce processor is not up to specs (stability, performance), so they disable the needed component and bring it down to the lower end model range where it fits the required specs.

For the story with AMD, I recall reading stories that some people having stability issues, or simply not work, when they enable the 4'th core out of their tri-core CPU.

As for the identical in feature processor, but faster, you pay a premium to have your CPU certified to go at a certain speed without issue (ie: if you screw up your overclock, or your motherboard doesn't allow to change some feature, you can't do it yourself, or even damage your CPU... it might last 2 years instead of 7).

To me what Intel is doing is the following:
Hey look boys and girls, presenting: Intel Core i11 3.0GHz , as you can see from reviews, it has benchmark of 1000 with Ben0Mark2010.
And you go "COOOOLL!!!!"
You go at the store buy your new Dell, HP or wtv, with that processor, you go home, and what do you have?
You have a Core i11 2.0GHz, and a score of 500 in Bench0Mark2010, and in the computer box you notice a card saying "Oh you want that Core i11 3.0GHz,m you need to pay extra! Bait and Switch! BIATCH, LOL!"

 

When consumers buy a lower binned cpu they know that it might not be as good as a higher binned cpu, but with this software multiplier thing people know that the chip they bought is being actively limited, and not limited as a result of manufacturing imperfections.

I know Intel can bin whatever chips they want at whatever specs but it's the way the facts are presented that draws the ire of consumers.

"We're selling you this chip at a low price because it might run hot and not oc well" always sounds better than "We're selling a good chip to you at low price because we've disable some stuff and hope to milk you for it later on."

 

No they make the whole thing on every chip because otherwise they'd need to make several optical masks which is more difficult. It's easier to cut things later, but those transistors could work and they still ship them to you.

If things like Hyperthreading don't work then the whole chip doesn't work. Also, every single i5 overclock I've seen has hit way more than i7s are clocked at. Is that not Intel artificially cutting back better chips already?

But the fact is they CAN be unlocked and DO work, so they are already shipping you something that is more than it is. The only difference is Intel officiating it.

And this is no different. You pay a $50 premium for a better chip if you want the upgrade. Except the upgrade requires no time on the OEMs part.

No, that's completely not it.

You BUY the PC with a set component that has a specific value and performance attached to it. Intel offers an upgrade for $$ money. The only difference is that there's no physical swapping of the CPU. If companies sold you any PC claiming it had the faster part - any part - as standard, but wanted more money after it was sold, then they'd get sued. I agree it IS shitty that it's labelled as the same part - it's a G6951 that changes to a G6951 - and it's also shitty that Intel is charging $50 for the same features as another processor that's $20 more. That's ****ing shameful.

Intel already shows off fast CPUs (980X) that score awesome benchmarks, but at $1000 most of us can only afford the $100 parts that score a fraction of their best hardware.

The Core i5-661 was a perfect example of this. Intel issued this chip to press at Clarkdale launch as a review part, but it has never released another 900MHz "1" graphics core apart from this. Intel basically wanted better launch numbers for its IGP as most people would not buy the 661 and instead have their IGP clocked at 733MHz. The only thing stopping that from being truly shameful is that Intel actually made the 661 a retail part.


This whole thread just goes to show that people attribute software as having NO value. Only if something is physically bad or limited, then it's acceptable

 

Very interesting opinion:
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/09/19/intel-drm-a-crippled.html

 

An interesting opinion, for sure. The difference here is that Intel isn't selling you the hyperthreaded part. They are selling you a non-hyperthreaded part, that you as a customer agree to have enough value to part with X monies for.

That's where the comparison with the rented movie goes wrong. You have bought a physical product, and it's yours to do with as you please. I would also unblinkingly download and use "hacked" tools that do just what the intel tool does. the cricial distiction though, is in the fact that i will accep that i have just voided my warranty.

I look at the "unlock card" as an overclocking tool. A very expensive overclocking tool, but one tht OCs your CPU without voiding warranty. That's a very important distiction for some people, and i guess that holds enough value to warrant such schemes. Ofcourse, $50 is totally rediculous, but wat if the price would be about 25% of the original processor price, while you gain up to 25% performance?

This warranty thing annoys me. People all over the world clock the balls off their CPU, run a quadcore at 4GHz for a year of folding, and then send it RMA when it dies. You have used your processor outside of specifications, take the damn responsibility! And don't give me any of that "they have money by the bucketloads anyway"-BS. With your cynical "i know it's wrong but i can get away with a few bucks in my pocket" attitude you are slowly deconstructing society, bit by bit. /rant

Intel needs to have their heads examined for the way they are introducing this to the public and the price they put on the card, but i don't blame them at all for trying to see some cash from people wanting to upgrade their proc by way of an OC.

 

The reason why I am against this, is that if it works, it will go like wild fire in a very dry forest, with lots of winds pushing the fires to other trees.

It's going to be like:
- You buy a laptop at 1.2k$, that is it.. there is no other faster model, you have to pay to access more storage, more space, and so on, which leads you paying a lot more than if you taking the faster, better, larger solution in the first place, but doesn't exists because OEM makes money on that upgrade too. And they all do it, so your screwed, there is no other OEM to go to.

- I like overclocking my things, for me, it adds value. My Core i7 is not worth the money I paid for 2.8GHz processor, it's just not. Especially that it's actually already on the market for over a year now. Overclocking allows me to extend a computer from 3 year of usage to 5-6 years. Basically I overclock what I need based on my needs, at the time it comes that I need additional performance. Now, what will happen, is we will need to pay additionally to unlock some CPU overclocking features, where the more you pay, the more feature you have. Additionally, the CPU is not cover, and if you RMA it, you loose the right to unlock your CPU, and need to re-purchase the rights to do so. To add to this mess, the day Intel or AMD releases a new processor, they might remove the unlock card from the market. Then what do you do?! Assuming of course, you stay legal.

 

I think there is a big difference.
With normal OC/core unlocking you are buying a product able to turn without failing (proof the guarantee) at n Ghz or use n core and you are trying to see if while reducing the security (and loosing guarantee) you can get more)
In this case Intel or AMD is selling based on a proc capable of doing better but maybe not capable itself.

In this case you are buying a product that can do more with the same security with only a software change. That the same ******** than game with DLC already installed when it's sold for the first time and still having to pay to unlock it.
Here intel is saying this proc is capable of doing better but you have to pay to.

When I buy hardware I want to legally be able to do what I want with including using it at higher setting than it has been made for.

 

I think we all know in the back of our minds that we're constantly being robbed. Buy a product at a low price and features are arbitrarily cut to create a diverse product line. Buy a product at a price and know everything you bought is the same as the low price model, just arbitrarily unlocked. It's never a "fair deal".

We all know this happens and learn to accept it because it's familiar and, quite frankly, never changing. When something like this comes along it shakes all of that up. It reminds us that we paid $200 more for essentially the same physical product, and that never sits well with a person. It also scares us for the future as GoodBytes points out. It just pushes us farther and farther away from the ideal world of that i7-860 being sold as at i5-750 prices because it costs the same to make each of them. Intel can now say straight to the world's faces: we purposefully cripple our products just so enthusiasts pay to unlock them! Screw providing powerful and relatively inexpensive processors while still making slight profit, lets give the mainstream market trash and make more money!

Even if it's been going on for the history of CPU production and is certainly not an Intel specific thing, it just sucks to see and hear it happening.

 

sounds good to me


seems like its some form of software unlock and will be cracked in no time

 

i hope this s*** gets cracked, and people get what they paid for.

 

You mean the lower clocked CPU you payed for?

I don't see the problem... You get a fully functioning CPU at price X, if you want to upgrade (without swapping the CPU) you can...

It is like buying one of those beefy BMWs or Mercedeses that are limited at 250km/h, you just get the option to remove the speed limiter...

 

As the article linked to in the post above (by GoodBytes) refers to, Intel have indicated that they will not hesitate to use the DCMA (an abortion of legislation is there ever was one) to hammer anyone who attempts to "crack" the software unlock.

It all smells to me of an attempt to move the idea of "licensing" CPU's closer...you don't own a physical product, you simply pay a license to use it and it is not transferable.

Anyone want to bet that Intel wouldn't use the threat of DCMA over m/b manufacturers to force them to block any code unlocks from "unofficial" software? The manufacturers' hands would be tied if they wanted to sell Intel compatible m/b's.

Not enough healthy competition in the CPU market methinks...it is the only reason something like this could ever be thought about, let alone succeed.

 

But neither BMW or Mercedes are going to use the DCMA to rape your ass if you decide to do it without asking them first and paying them e.g. if you get a non-authorised mechanic to do the work. Sure you will invalidate the waranty but you won't risk a jail sentence.

This anology doesn't work, period.

 

But Bindi, a CPU is hardware. If I buy a piece of hardware I expect, maybe naively, to be able to do what I want with it. If the manufacturer puts artificial limitations on the hardware that I can get around by being clever, so what? It is my lump of silicon. If I want to throw it away, give it away or turn it into an ashtray, I can. If I want to break something the manufacturer designed into it in because I want to play with it, I can - all without the threat of a lawsuit (see DCMA threat by Intel).

I don't want Intel (or any other manufacturer) "licensing" what I can do with a physical product and using their market position to dictate to all others in the market that they must follow suit or be butt-f****d in the court of their choosing.

As I posted above, only a lack of serious competition could ever lead to this being considered as a good idea.

 

I would like this also but it's not the model of the future unfortunately. It's the 'platform model' people have already accepted that has been on the books for years People buy Apple products locked to iTunes, Xbox and PS3 consoles that are locked down. ARM parts can only have limited upgrades not to mention all the tablets coming up. What about buying Windows 7 discs that have ALL the versions on them, but you pay to unlock the extra features? Surely that's the same thing too?

Intel is locking off Sandy Bridge so you'll have limited overclocking capacity. You buy what they want you to buy - what features they perceive as having value. Anything else is a luxury unfortunately.

It's the same as cars. Same engine, different ECU and a whole wrath of premium upgrade options.

I don't want this either and I totally agree: I hate the licensing model as well. It's ********. But equally why didn't we cry that Intel has locked out HyperThreading from their i5-750s then charged £60 more for it in the i7-860, when all Lynnfield chips can physically do it, so it's just the next step. You bought the SAME physical product as someone that owns an i7-860, but they just didn't get Hyperthreading lasered out at one stage.

Question to all: Would you pay $x amount to unlock ANY CPU instead of buying specific K editions?

 

funny but true.

all cars start as a base then you add all the optional bits on top of it. ( which can add to several thounds of pounds )

intel has so much market share you can either like it or not it doesnt matter. AMD Are so far behind that intel can do whatever they want. AMD 6 core vs intel 6 core ignore price intel destroys amd so far its not even funny. even the 930 beats the 6 core in most real world situations.

if it was to pay £50 to unlock the cpu multiplier they would get my money if it was to pay £50 for hyperthreading id probably tell them thanks but no thanks.

look at what apple can do on the phone market, its a totaly locked handset yet apple is 24% of market share with one phone remade a few times. ( http://www.informationweek.com/blog...l;jsessionid=2C2IXMX1WZWA5QE1GHPSKHWATMY32JVN)

think about people who sell pcs

dell has most of the market to itself at the business end of the scale.

windows 7 ultimate is on windows 7 basic disk but you gotta pay to install the features. microsoft again has 90% i think it works out at of the market share ( aproaching 91% at latest estimates. ) dont see a huge uproar about this though do we.

theres a saying in life the rich get richer well that applys to businesses as well. The more powerful apple microsoft dell and intel become the more they can force people to do. This is the future of electronics, car industry has been doing it for 20 + years minimum its called upselling its what that salesman is paid for the more he upsells the more he gets paid.

 

Though it's not really an answer, I'd rather just have my CPU as what my CPU is. If the total cost of R&D and production of CPU1 is, for discussion purposes, $1000 and CompanyA expects to sell 10 units, then I would expect to pay something in the area of $100, taking into accounts markups from third parties, taxes, and CompanyA's slice of profit. If there's an advanced CPU2 model with two more cores and more L3 cache, I expect to pay a little more for the added production costs and extra R&D. I do not want to pay $110 for CPU1 with a core disabled (and still being sold at a profit), $120 for all of CPU1, and $150 for CPU2 even though it only costs $10 more to produce/research.

But if I have to choose the options given, I'll take the K editions. At least then I can pretend that I bought something different than the standard one. It also prevents any later price fluctuations which could see me buying a cheap processor and being forced to pay far more than I expected to upgrade.

 

I totally understand that it is planned by companies like Intel to make this the model of the future but, maybe because I am a bit of an old fart, I cannot get my head around buying hardware that I cannot do what I want with. Software I get, I understand the need to protect the illegal duplication of the IP but it is not as if I am going to duplicate a CPU. By this model Intel are proposing, all CPU's will be the same and the unlock code you buy will determine what spec you get.

This will simply stifle innovation. What incentive will Intel have to produce a better performing product? The question about transferability of the unlocked CPU also worries me. Would they dare "license" a CPU to a person or motherboard?

The very fact that they are introducing a limitation that didn't previously exist to increase profit on a product that hasn't cost more to produce really rankles. I can't think of another hardware product where such a physical limitation has been introduced.

I am willing to bet that there will be a concerted effort to unlock the overclocking capacity of Sandy Bridge.

The car anology is weak, car manufacturers will not threaten you with the DCMA if you modify the ECU (yet). I can remove the ECU if I really wanted to go to the effort of making it work without it. Unlikely I know but the choice is available to me. The premium upgrade options can be replicated by the owner without risking legal action (just invalidating the warranty). Intel's "options" cannot.

I can take my car to a performance specialist who will make it as I want it without any restriction, legal or otherwise, by the manufacturer. The very real threat of Intel wielding the DCMA will force, for example, motherboard manufactuers to fall in line.

Like the situation where a purchaser wields too much power or control over a market (e.g. big supermarkets over food producers), the situation where a supplier wields too much power or control over purchasers also leads to market manipulation, stifling all the elements that lead to innovation and limiting choice.

There wasn't a huge outcry because we can do stuff with the i5 750 (such as overclocking) to make the lack of hyperthreading not a big deal for our purposes. Preventing overclocking of the i5 750 would have produced such an outcry in my opinion. It is about value for money. If the i5 750 could not be overclocked then it would not have been seen as having as much value for money.

With this move, Intel want the value of a CPU to be exactly what they want you to pay for it. History has shown that the most successful consumer products, which is all a CPU is after all, have a perceived value over and above what is paid for them, even if it only a perception.

Are we heading to a future where we rent CPU's? Fail to pay your license fee and activate it (using software) every year and your 3.2GHz quad core becomes a 2.0GHz dual core?

Not sure, most of us go through hardware like hot dinners, what really matters is choice. If the Intel choice is less attractive than another, the market decides. I mentioned in a previous post that only a lack of serious competition could lead to a scenario such as this where one company looks like it wants to remove the market from the equation, thereby making our decisions for us. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely...

Maybe I am too tired to communicate this more clearly but this will stifle innovation, limit consumer choice and put too much control of the market in the hands of Intel.

If I were AMD I would be rubbing my hands with glee and pulling my finger out to bring out a better product than Intel. If AMD do not take this opportunity to steal market share from Intel then I am not sure they will ever have such an opportunity again.

 

I Have a question, are they able to produce the same quality of die for all them processor ? Which warranty they have that all these CPU will do all the same ?