Intel wants to charge extra to unlock CPU features?

[Rhonen]

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/18/intel-wants-to-charge-50-to-unlock-stuff-your-cpu-can-already-d/

Looks like this is on pre-builts from the big re-sellers, but this is a worrisome turn of events. D:

Oh, and hey, first post. :awe:

 

[crucibelle]

Wow, as if their processors don't already cost enough.

 

[Bateluer]

I wonder how long it'll last, if its publically known that the chip has a functioning cache and additional cores? At least, if the CPU can actually be bought outside of an OEM system.

AMD for the win though.

 

[Blain]

Looks like this is on pre-builts from the big re-sellers, but this is a worrisome turn of events. D:

"Worrisome"... Really? How so?
Sounds like you're trying to "whip up an angry mob"

 

[Davidh373]

"Worrisome"... Really? How so?
Sounds like you're trying to "whip up an angry mob"

It's only worrisome if it's successful, and it is VERY possible it will be successful. I guarantee the good ol' Best Buy sales reps will be pushing those $50 "performance upgrades" on the ignorant masses (who will likely be the only ones buying pentium D systems). Then of course it's predictable that Intel will do it with all their processors in manufacturer computers. Heck, they already charge more for the "Unlocked" version of the dual core i5s. It's only a matter of time I suppose...

 

[lxskllr]

Worrisome, or untapped overclocking opportunities? I'd be interested in seeing what 3rd parties come up with. It might make value builds even cheaper.

 

[zagood]

Awesome. DLC for a processor.

 

[corkyg]

Different strokes . . . .

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2106563

 

[Blain]

Someone please explain exactly why this should be "worrisome" to members of the AT forums.
Maybe this bold move will be as successful as Intel's plan to move to a BTX form factor.

Engadget was correct when they predicted the story was... "liable to whip up an angry mob".

 

[Kenmitch]

I'd think that in the end it may be best for those whom shop for a computer by price and then later on decide they should be been more aware of features. I'd think that this is kinda like a buyers remorse situation type of thing more than anything else.

Not sure if it'll be implemented up the intel food chain or if it'll just stay on the lower end of it. Currently it looks like it's in the price point that would be most profitable to intel....The low end.

I wouldn't see a problem with paying for 4 cores and 8 threads now and having the option to unlock 6 cores and 12 threads at a later time....Price dependant tho

 

[Davidh373]

Someone please explain exactly why this should be "worrisome" to members of the AT forums.
Maybe this bold move will be as successful as Intel's plan to move to a BTX form factor.

Engadget was correct when they predicted the story was... "liable to whip up an angry mob".

This is possibly the first sign that Intel will begin Locking performance on all their chips, therefore, we custom builders will have to shell out an extra $50 to OC, or get extra Cache or HT support. Theoretically this could mean you could buy an i7, and pay for upgrades individually one day. The standard $200 (or whatever) payed for the first core to be unlocked, and an extra fee payed for each core to be unlocked. It could also spread to Cache. "Oh, you want 2MB L3 cache over 1MB, another $50 please!" It's not that it's scary immediately, it could potentially be scary if Intel gets bonkers about it.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I run at stock speed and buy the CPU that makes sense for the job.

If that CPU happens to have extra parts on it that are shipped soft-disabled instead of permanently burned away, why should that bother me?

If the $200 6-core 2 MB cache part is really a partially disabled $300 8-core 4 MB part, I'm still only being charged $200 for it, whether the extra cores are turned off or burned away. I'd say being able to pay $100 (or possibly only $50) a year later to unlock the extras is a feature not an outrage.

 

[corkyg]

I run at stock speed and buy the CPU that makes sense for the job. If that CPU happens to have extra parts on it that are shipped soft-disabled instead of permanently burned away, why should that bother me? If the $200 6-core 2 MB cache part is really a partially disabled $300 8-core 4 MB part, I'm still only being charged $200 for it, whether the extra cores are turned off or burned away. I'd say being able to pay $100 (or possibly only $50) a year later to unlock the extras is a feature not an outrage.

Thanks, Dave. I second that with a big ditto!

 

[spac18]

This system is like marrying a decent looking chick initially and upgrade her looks with the help of a magic pill (not plastic surgery) as you get richer. You wont have to divorce her and pay alimony.
Aside from jokes (or "personal attacks"), on a serious note, this might stop intel from charging ridiculously for small performance gains like they did with i7 860 & i7 870. If a software can increase performance of a cpu, then nobody will pay $280 for that and intel wont be able to price higher clocked cpu as if it was of a different breed. It will force intel to take the amd apporch of pricing, but they will reach their target profit from the upgrades. It will be good for everybody. It will be like the gpus where performance increases with price. And if amd can deliver competitive cpus next year, intel will almost be forced to change their pricing tactics and launch upgrade cards.

 

[Rhonen]

"Worrisome"... Really? How so?
Sounds like you're trying to "whip up an angry mob"

Worrisome because how do you think Intel will prevent someone from unlocking on their own without paying Intel?

I don't know about you, but I really don't want some sort of hardware DRM. So I'm WORRIED that Intel will implement that. No angry mobs here, just expressing my concerns.

edit: I should add this also could set a precedence at retail. They obviously are testing on mainstream consumers because face it, they are less informed. The usually ask a sales person, whose priority is making a sale, for tech advice. A nickel/dime business model is like Christmas for sales. They love pushing their extended warranties and the like. So these sort of upgrades are high mark-up items. These are the sort of point-of-sale, high margin add-ons they love (HDMI cables, etc.)

The fallout, of course, would be that Intel moves from the mainstream processors to their whole line if this method is successful. Instead of being able to overclock, an enthusiast would have to pay extra to overclock. It would no longer be about increasing margins, it would be moving to an entirely different hardware purchasing model because it becomes the accepted norm. It wouldn't be about "paying for only what you use", it would be "charge them the same but give them less" since they've already accepted it.

If the market obliviously accepts less purchasing power, companies take advantage of it. Speaking up brings the issue to light, so that the oblivious consumer now is aware, and can inform themselves.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Instead of being able to overclock, an enthusiast would have to pay extra to overclock.

This is already going to be a reality with Sandy Bridge. Because they've moved the clock signals into the CPU, there is no "normal" FSB overclocking. Instead, you have to pay extra for a "K" model, which features an unlocked multiplier.

 

[konakid7]

Hopefully AMD sticks around to give Intel competition and keep them in check. I'd be scared to see what would happen if Intel got a monopoly.

 

[Davidh373]

They will. If any company is going under I would think it will be an off-brand company like Matrox, or at WORST ATI.