Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 19th Sep 2010 20:32 UTC, submitted by sawboss
Permalink for comment 441719
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-04-03
So I buy a CPU for $100 that I can enable features on for $50. So I actually bought a $150 CPU in the first place. Apparently it didn't cost Intel any more to produce that $150 CPU than it would have to produce a $100 CPU -- otherwise they would either have to charge $150 for it in the first place, to make any margin, or make two completely different versions.
So in this case it looks like Intel has come up with a way to make two hugely different levels of profit margin off an identical profit. Makes me wonder if they haven't been selling us all hugely powerful CPUs forever and just dumbing them down a bit. Good for profits, bad morally, I say.