Would you buy an Intel chip hobbled by design?

Rebel021

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20017207-64.html
Intel has a new pilot program that may not go over well with consumers. Imagine going into a store to buy a new computer and being told that you needed to pay extra in order to access all of the processor’s features. The new pilot program will focus on a single Pentium processor SKU (line) and require a special code to access the processor’s full capabilities. The purchase price to unlock the processor is $50 and you would need to have the store (Best Buy) do the upgrade or download the code and do it yourself.
From the article: Intel is conducting a retail pilot program that introduces desktop PCs with an Intel Pentium G6951 processor that has certain features turned off–namely, part of the cache memory and a function called hyper-threading. Cache memory is critical, very-high-speed memory built into the chip, while hyper-threading allows a processor to use, on some applications, virtual cores, essentially doubling the number of physical processing cores.
Would you:

• Accept a computer with a limited-function processor and use it as is?
• Accept a computer with a limited-function processor and pay for the upgrade?
• Or simply refuse to purchase it at all?

heyjude

Rebel021 wrote: »

Would you:

• Accept a computer with a limited-function processor and use it as is?
• Accept a computer with a limited-function processor and pay for the upgrade?
• Or simply refuse to purchase it at all?

No
No
I would refuse to purchase it at all, imagine buying a car and being charged if you wanted to drive at over 80kph, or use the radio, air conditioning etc. Total nonsense. Hopefully not the thin end of the wedge.

marco_polo

Imagine buying a dual/tri core that was actually a quad with one/two working cores disabled.

Oh wait a minute .....

Looks like AMD are guilty as well.

Don't see the issue if you are getting for the level of performance that you pay for, I have my doubts that it will take off mind.

VenomIreland

marco_polo wrote: »

Imagine buying a dual/tri core that was actually a quad with one/two working cores disabled.

Oh wait a minute .....

Looks like AMD are guilty as well.

Don't see the issue if you are getting for the level of performance that you pay for, I have my doubts that it will take off mind.

AMD do that often to meet demand, it cuts down costs because they don't need to design a new processor and can just use an existing one.

marco_polo

VenomIreland wrote: »

AMD do that often to meet demand, it cuts down costs because they don't need to design a new processor and can just use an existing one.

Very true in some batches that get shipped all four cores are in perfect condition prior to being crippled, not always just the wonky borked 2 (or 3) out of 4 ones.

Anti

The great thing about intel doing this is that it will be cracked very quickly. So buying a i7-965 with 2 active cores running at 2.6ghz for lets say 200euro, and then using the crack to get it to the full speed. 400e saving. Intel are absolutely out of their tree doing this as it is only a software limitation.

The way AMD already do it, and have een doing since the 3800+ is that they just lock a core, which can be hard modded back in by creating a link in the bridge(Completing the cicruit). This was done to meet cpu demand.

Rebel021

It might be a good thing.
Consider this say the price of a processor 15-20% cheaper with limitations and then the jailbreaking community come along and crack it.

Although I can see Intel selling the processors at the same price with limitations and doing this to squeeze more cash from its consumer base.

This is not a novel or new idea Microsoft have been doing this for a while with their Windows Anytime Upgrade

Solitaire

This thread just reeks of deja vu. Lots of it.

In any case the initial version of it is a real storm in a teacup. Intel couldn't keep up with its contracts to supply Pentium Gs to certain OEMs so they cut down a bunch of i3s to make up the shortfall. This put them in a position where if they tracked which OEm got which batch of chips, those models could avail of a feature to unlock the i3-ness later. Sure, it costs money, but coincidentally seeing as an i3 costs more than a Pentium G anyway... :rolleyes: The cards are targeted at less tech-savvy users and probably feature some form of online authentication DRM so the firmware itself would have to be cracked rather than simply torrenting the software on the card as it doesn't contain the magic and would be useless.

Nope, my problem comes from the fact that Intel said the system was a demo for something bigger... and Sandy Bridge CPUs can't be OCd. If Intel tightly controlled the max multiplier of SB chips via these unlock codes then they could force SB users to rent their OC... a very ugly precedent that will generate as much genuine fury as the fact of SB's un-OCability...

the untitled user

Would this have anything to do with the failure that is Larrabee? i.e. the inability to have a go at the graphics market means they are looking for alternatives to eek more revenues out of the lucrative enthusiast market?

Solitaire

More like they saw how AMD Core Unlocking caught the imaginations of many a tweaker and wanted to take advantage of the similarities with cut-down versions of their chips but also by exposing it to the much larger non-tweaker userbase and make money from the service.

With Sandy Bridge though... its gonna be a nightmare. With the bCLK finally a fixed constant locked, hardwired to the CPU uncore, the only way to OC will be via multiplier and if Intel could control the flow of the happy juice... well, satanic as GCRS is, we're stuck with it. We rent out our mobiles, our internet connections, in most places even our TV as terrestrial is pretty much a no-go nowadays... games you "buy" you also rent nowadays, either through subscription or (especially with non- or free-MMO titles) endless floods of pricey "microtransactions"... well now Intel has come-a'-calling looking for a piece of that oh-so-meaty pie

Rebel021

Does anybody know which processors are affected?
Will it be only new processors released to the market?

Anti

Yeah its only the new ones. Anything on the market at the moment will be fine. By law the retailers/etailers will have to advertised the performance locked chips before you buy them. You will also notice a fair difference in the price.