Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 19th Sep 2010 20:32 UTC, submitted by sawboss
Intel On a Windows Vista or Vindows 7 disk, all versions of the operating system are present, from Starter to Ultimate, and everything in between. So, if you want too upgrade to a more capable version of Windows down the road, all you need to do is pop the Windows disk in, let Windows Anytime Upgrade do its thing, and you're done. It seems like Intel is experimenting with a similar technology... For its processors.
Thread beginning with comment 441719
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Confused
by tyrel on Mon 20th Sep 2010 02:09 UTC
tyrel
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.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Confused
by nt_jerkface on Mon 20th Sep 2010 05:31 in reply to "Confused"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

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.


AMD/ATI, NVIDIA and Intel have all done this before.

What is immoral about selling a cpu at differing clock speeds even if the die is the same? You are being offered different levels of power/price, why does the manufacturing process make it immoral?

AMD is selling a triple core laptop cpu. That is freaking awesome. I love Intel cpus as well. All these multicore low temp cpus are so much better from what we had 10 years ago. Has everyone forgotten how much 1ghz cpus used to cost? I remember getting a Duron 800 and thinking about how smooth it ran XP. That is 800 as in 800mhz. I think I paid about $130 and it was an excellent deal compared to the pentiums.

Who gives a flying F if people at Best Buy have to pay 50 bucks to bump up their already fast cpu. Intel is a great company, they deserve that 50 bucks. Americans will drop 50 bucks on pizza and drinks. I did it Saturday night and I didn't get a boost in power that will last for years.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Confused
by lemur2 on Mon 20th Sep 2010 06:50 in reply to "RE: Confused"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

AMD/ATI, NVIDIA and Intel have all done this before.

What is immoral about selling a cpu at differing clock speeds even if the die is the same? You are being offered different levels of power/price, why does the manufacturing process make it immoral?


There is nothing necessarily wrong with it at all, if the reasons are not simply to rip people off, but rather to offer them better value for money.

For example ... suppose the manufacturing process for chips throws up a certain defect rate. Suppose I have a wafer with a number of quad-core CPUs, and that wafer throws up a 50% defect rate. On 50% of the chips on the wafer, not all four CPU cores are functional.

Now suppose I make it so that I can isolate power from a dud core, and by doing that I can salvage what would otherwise be a dud chip to now be a working three-core CPU, but with one unpowered area of silicon. Now I can have a wafer yeild 50% working quad-core chips, plus say 40% triple-core chips.

Now I don't have to throw away 50% of the chips, I can now sell 50% as full-spec quad cores, and a further 40% as lower-priced triple-core parts. Everyone wins. I can even sell the quad-core parts cheaper, because there is less wastage in the whole process. This is pure win-win.

But that is not what Intel are offering here at all, it is only superficially the same. What Intel are actually offering here is a win for Intel, and a tax on everyone else.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Confused
by dragos.pop on Mon 20th Sep 2010 08:28 in reply to "Confused"
dragos.pop Member since:
2010-01-08

I'm not sure about the bad morality part but:

Apparently it didn't cost Intel any more to produce that $150 CPU than it would have to produce a $100 CPU

It does cost more but only marginally. Having more cash means more stuff on the silicone cell, more energy consume... But this is measured in cents/CPU compared to development and handling costs.
Makes me wonder if they haven't been selling us all hugely powerful CPUs forever and just dumbing them down a bit.

They have and they let us know it:
All CPUs from a generation are, in theory, identical. But they test each CPU and find out the max speed it can run, and remain stable.
So they run the CPU at 2.4 GHz, if it overheats or smth, they run it at 2.2GHz and so on until they find a speed at which the CPU performs well.

I don't see any reason that, if there are a lot of 2.4 CPUs, not to sell some of them at 2.2, where the price (much) is lower but the market is bigger. This will help them keep price up on the high performance segment, but keep them down on the (normal) consumer segment.

About the upgrade part, I don't like it from the marketing point of view, but I don't find any morality point of view.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Confused
by nt_jerkface on Mon 20th Sep 2010 19:23 in reply to "RE: Confused"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


They have and they let us know it:
All CPUs from a generation are, in theory, identical. But they test each CPU and find out the max speed it can run, and remain stable.
So they run the CPU at 2.4 GHz, if it overheats or smth, they run it at 2.2GHz and so on until they find a speed at which the CPU performs well.


I'm sorry but you put too much trust into corporations. Yes that is their explanation and that is often the case but there have also been plenty times where clock speed clearly could have been much higher at the low end but they wanted to use tiered pricing.

This is true for Intel, AMD/ATI and Nvidia. I remember an AMD case where the company was embarrassed over people who figured out how to unlock the full cpu with a hardware hack and then changed the die.

Reply Parent Score: 2