Intel Charging $50 to Unlock Your CPU

Admittedly kind of shady, but what it does "guarantee" is that the lower model chips aren't laser cut, so hopefully we can manually unlock them ourselves. That is, if pricing is still relatively the same as the Core 2/i generations.
 
3 words.

F that shit.

Its straight bush leauge, making paid software unlocks for hardware in order to make more money off something you already own is like what was stated, DLC. AMD adds value to their low end processors because you have a decent chance to unlock a 2 or 3 core into 4, as well as in some cases, unlocking L3 cache. Heres hoping that bulldozer is a complete success.
It's possible that Intel is doing this in response to AMD's upcoming Bulldozer based CPUs. If there's anyone who knows what AMD is cooking, it's certainly Intel.

This maybe their way to make quick cash, before AMD releases their new chips. That means they probably don't have anything to compete with it for a while, and honestly nobody is going to care about Intels reputation from this $50 L3 cache upgrade cards.

As soon as Intel makes a faster CPU then Bulldozer, people will go right back to buying Intel. They know it, you know it.

except that none of those features mean anything to joe six pack....he cant even spell them

if you give him a scratch card he can buy at walmart....well.....he's been buying those for years and can handle it
Except Joe six pack knows a guy like me, and joe six pack would rather save his money for things like a six pack of beer. So he'll just have someone like me download that "I7_1GHZ_UPGRADE_RAZOR1911.torrent" and speed up his machine for him.

Everyone knows a computer guy.
 
Just one more reason to hate Intel. Being an AMD fanboy I dont need that many but a few extra cant hurt.
 
Except Joe six pack knows a guy like me, and joe six pack would rather save his money for things like a six pack of beer. So he'll just have someone like me download that "I7_1GHZ_UPGRADE_RAZOR1911.torrent" and speed up his machine for him.

Everyone knows a computer guy.

and i am that computer guy in the group of people i work and associate with

and they rarely are interested in getting things that way, even when i mention the ability before hand, they shrug it off and say "meh....i saw _____at Walmart the other day and just picked that up"

like the lady a couple weeks ago who sits next to me, she was ready to bring me her laptop a few years old, still decent though, just badly in need of a format and re-install and proper setup to start over....i offered my services for free...and over the weekend she saw a laptop she liked and bought it. "because it was just easier to get a new one and it's faster now"

that my friend is what happens most of the time, the fastest path of least resistance, even if it costs a little more, is what most people will choose

trust me, if average joe sixpack can "upgrade" his two year old laptop by spending $50 on a scratch off card at Walmart he will instead of spending time learning how to use a pc responsibly or having someone fix theirs properly
 
why would intel "lock" new features in their processors in the first place?
 
why would intel "lock" new features in their processors in the first place?

So you spend $50 to unlock them. Same reason the multiplier is locked on the cheaper i7s. To make you buy the more expensive ones.
 
"the meaning of life" (in the usa) get money, and then:), get more money!;)
 
Just wait until they figure a way to charge you for how many cycles your processor has run...

You have run out of credits, to finish your task ...
 
Let's take the poor man's hobby of getting more out of something lesser and shit all over it.
 
Yeah its not like AMD would do something ridiculous like take a perfectly fine working 4 core processor and sell it as a 3 core processor! Imagine the outrage that would happen is AMD was purposefully crippling quads cores to sell them as triple cores until someone unlocked them.

Oh wait...

Those cores are binned, initially because they didn't get high enough yields (nVidia GTX260/280; ATi HD5850/HD5870), later, because of market demand for them. Intel is (essentially) offering a scratch off card that upgrades your HD5850 to a HD5870...

The only annoyance, to me, is that everything was working 100% to begin with, and there were no technical reasons why that CPU/GPU was locked down to begin with. Only pure marketing.
 
I'm surprised that Intel hasn't binned some of their CPU's in cereal boxes yet.
 
WTF. if nothing else does intel really think that this would NOT generate a lot of consumer hate? Sorry ethics aside this is just dumb
 
The funny thing about this is, unlocking more "cores" is not going to give you a real noticeable performance boost in gaming.
 
EDIT: And also, it makes me wonder who this scheme is really marketed for? Perhaps "Joe User", but the same kind of user who doesn't care about performance hardware is not likely to care about being able to pay $50 for "extreme" performance. And honestly, unlocking some cores is not a viable replacement for an upgrade, anyway.
 
I actually like this. It means that instead of them cutting bits out in the fabrication process, they'll just use some kind of software lockout. That will be a lot easier for hackers to hack. Meaning overclocking will become a lot easier, relying less on motherboard manufacturers' tricks and more on enterprising individuals who can unlock CPU's for us. Intel will call it piracy, no doubt.

This could also lead to lower CPU prices than we'd normally have because Intel will be counting on more of the cost that we used to pay to the retailer going directly into their bank accounts, bypassing the retailer altogether.

Haha, this could be the start of a whole new angle on chip fab. I could see nVidia and AMD totally copying this concept.

I suppose it was inevitable. If it is unhackable, I don't think I'll like it very much, but really... when Intel announced the death of mb-controlled FSB's and multipliers recently with Sandy Bridge, I fully expected that to mean the eventual bell tolling for all overclocking on Intel platforms. They're giving us a transition period with the K CPU's, but in time, they'll phase that out. They as good as said that it was something they'd do for a while, which means not forever. And why would they? Desktops have been supplanted by laptops, laptops are being supplanted by netbooks/tablets/smartphones, so in the end the computer is being replaced by a collection of somewhat cheaper individually but more expensive as a whole devices that often have subscription costs associated with them. The money's there, not in laptops.

Eventually, Intel's big money won't even be coming from computers. Does anyone think they'll still be releasing unlocked CPU's when computer CPU's aren't their main moneymaker?
 
It's a bit misleading, that thread title. I know they're limited in scope and size but... the proper title should read something like:

"Intel Charging $50 to Unlock Capabilities of A CPU They Sell That Comes With Additional Features By Default"

or something like it. I know it's a stupid idea by Intel - pretty sure they do as well, long before this even became public knowledge just a few days ago - but, come on... at least be accurate about it. ;)

As many have mentioned, it's just another form of DLC aka Downloadable Content these days.
 
Damnit I can see why all these people are so angry.

I mean all the trouble intel has gone to, to fuck everybody. They first of all constructed their death tower. And now when these new chips are going to be released their let forth a peel from the death bell that shall cause every i7, i5 xeon and c2 to mystically stop working. well be forced to buy all new stuff and wont be able to OC it as much anymore.

Damn intel and its death bell.


But alllso its better for people in europe and things, as instead of shelling out a load of money for a more expensive part you can get a code from the US of A which ignores the 1USD to 1GBP, 2 EURO excange rate that seems to happen with all things technology...
 
So this is geared towards store bought computers, from the looks of the linked article, and not retail chips right?
If that's the case I don't really see it as a big deal. Typically a store bought PC really can't be overclocked much anyways cause of locked out features on the MB. So if the average Joe can buy a card to unlock their CPU to be faster than it was on there gateway, Dell or HP then that's better than having to buy a new PC again or try to use other software to OC it some.

As long as they leave the retail chips alone then I don't really see the big deal.
 
Just one more reason to hate Intel. Being an AMD fanboy I dont need that many but a few extra cant hurt.

Until AMD and nVidia starts doing this as well :p

If it works, I don't see what other chip maker won't be doing the same thing.

Neither AMD nor nVidia likes user unlocking locked features and cores either. Just that currently there's no any other means to prevent that besides physically cutting them off.
 
Yeah. They will advertise at 2am during McGuyver re-runs.

I can see it now.

"Your computer running slow? Click here and enter your credit card number to unlock faster speeds!"

Intel.. or ID Thief..you decide

/exaggeration off
 
I actually like this. It means that instead of them cutting bits out in the fabrication process, they'll just use some kind of software lockout. That will be a lot easier for hackers to hack.
Maybe, but probably not. The expected life for a chip before upgrading is only 1~3 years, so unlike, say, DVD or Blu-ray, there won't be plenty of time to break the encryption before the hack becomes irrelevant.
 
This is such a non-starter issue but the AMD fanboy somehow think this is like kicking a puppy. I just don't get it.
 
So.. what happens when I migrate to a new hard drive and a fresh install? Is this 'software patch code' for my processor able to transfer, or will I have to shell out more cash, again, to get myself up to speed.

Additionally, if this *is* a software fix how is that going to operate on the various version of linux, OS2Warp, and Apples? That's a lot of ground to cover... even in the bios land.
 
Its just like article mentioned, DLC already on your install media that you cant have unless you pay for it. It reeks.
 
So this is geared towards store bought computers, from the looks of the linked article, and not retail chips right?
If that's the case I don't really see it as a big deal. Typically a store bought PC really can't be overclocked much anyways cause of locked out features on the MB. So if the average Joe can buy a card to unlock their CPU to be faster than it was on there gateway, Dell or HP then that's better than having to buy a new PC again or try to use other software to OC it some.

As long as they leave the retail chips alone then I don't really see the big deal.

^^ this
 
Except Joe six pack knows a guy like me, and joe six pack would rather save his money for things like a six pack of beer. So he'll just have someone like me download that "I7_1GHZ_UPGRADE_RAZOR1911.torrent" and speed up his machine for him.
And then they inevitably end up with a virus infection.. oh, the horrors! O_O

10GHz upgrade...
 
When process yields are low, nobody minds that chips with defective cores or cache are sold as lower end models. A Phenom X4 sells for 100% over cost, and Athlon X2 might only sell for 15% over cost.

When process yields are high, every chip could be made into a Phenom X4 but there is still demand for Athlon X2 for use in low-end systems. For market segmentation reasons some chips are made into Athlon X2s, so that AMD can sell more chips and make more overall profit.

To prevent remarking and other arbitrage, the disabling mechanism is a combination of shorting some fuses (permanent damage.) In addition, a code on the CPU instructs the BIOS which cores on the CPU are usable.

Intel has developed a software system that can make a static change to the CPU's configuration. "The upgrade enables changes to the firmware (driven by the Intel® Active Management Technology Management Engine in the chipset) that in turn modify the hardware."

The actual mechanism is not described but I guess that the chipset is shorting some fuses on the CPU to *enable* the cache and hyperthreading.

This means that it is no longer necessary for the CPU manufacturers to permanently limit a CPU for marketing reasons. It's the same business model, just with more flexibility.

This is a positive change. It's better for the environment. If we can upgrade our CPUs there will be fewer CPUs created. If a consumer doesn't want to give Intel the full profit margin upfront, the consumer can pay later for it.

If people hate the idea of buying CPUs with locked features, they are not obligated to do so. I recently even paid about $10 extra to buy a Phenom X2 965 Black Edition with no multiplier locks. But I do have a $300 i7 920 with a locked multiplier, and a $140 Pentium D 905 with locked hyperthreading, and a $50 Celeron D with a locked cache, and a $230Geforce GTX 470 with locked cores, and even a $ i486sx-33 with a locked math coprocessor. Some of those locked bits actually would have worked; I'll never know. I do know that I got what I paid for.

Of the $50 upgrade fee, maybe $35 will go to the reseller and $15 to Intel. We will only see this technology used in low-end PCs sold in retail stores. Enthusiasts like us will only see it when our relatives or clients need help, or perhaps on low-end netbooks.
 
@dadz, I like your way of looking at it. I doesn't seem like a terrible idea when you break it down like this.

Intel did say that they were only experimenting with the concept and that nothing is solid so far.
 
I'm more interested how that even works. Anyone know?

Is it just a resident driver that enables the additional hardware with Windows, or is it an actual hardware unlock that exposes it at the BIOS level?
 
@dadz, that's a good description.

I look at this as a differentiator. Let's say Joe-average-user is in the market for an inexpensive laptop. He's narrowed his choices down to two systems he can afford. The systems are comparable in price, performance and features... with one exception. System "X" offers a feature that gives him the option of upgrading the cpu performance at any time of his choosing via software in about 10 minutes time. System "Y" does not have this feature, so upgrading the cpu performance would require dropping it off at a computer shop, waiting 3 or 4 days for the hardware to be swapped out then going back to the shop to pick it up.

Which system do you think he would choose?
 
i see this differently, i see it as a smart business move that is ahead of its time

i can see in the near future they will only release a handful of CPU's for each socket, lets say 10 models instead of 30 or whatever they have these days, the number of levels will be limited by voltage binning, cant sell a "model 7" as a model 7 unless it is able to run at the possible unlock speeds at the given physical core's VID, so this means everything gets binned extra carefully

you can buy one and use it as it is, OR, you can pay a little extra to unlock more performance

it will be tiered, so that the different performance levels stack up until you get to the next stock cpu performance level, they wont overlap

this will be marketed as saving you money and allowing you to better find a cpu that suits your performance.

example:

you can buy model 7 for $100. if it works as-is for your use, great! but what if it doesn't? in the past you had to buy a new CPU! making your old purchase obsolete and wasted money! why buy a new car when all it needs is some aftermarket performance accessories to make it even faster without the hassle of the old way of "upgrading the cpu, motherboard and memory" which was costly and unnecessary!

now if six pack joe buys a computer, it works fine, but then Windows 11 comes out or some new game comes out that joe wants to play. he loads it up but its a little slow. he goes to the support page where the software company shows the "minimum requirements" and "recommended requirements". the cpu he bought 6 months ago meets the minimum, but all he has to do is drop by Walmart and pick up an upgrade code to bump his cpu up into the recommended territory

now joes game runs smoother, required no tech knowledge, required no tools and it was as painless as a trip to Walmart. (if you are me thats still pretty friggin painful but to the vast majority of people thats fine)

I think you hit the nail on the head. It's no different then offering upgrades to W7 within the system, imo. I do think that the scene is going to have a field day with this.
 
When process yields are low, nobody minds that chips with defective cores or cache are sold as lower end models. A Phenom X4 sells for 100% over cost, and Athlon X2 might only sell for 15% over cost.

When process yields are high, every chip could be made into a Phenom X4 but there is still demand for Athlon X2 for use in low-end systems. For market segmentation reasons some chips are made into Athlon X2s, so that AMD can sell more chips and make more overall profit.

To prevent remarking and other arbitrage, the disabling mechanism is a combination of shorting some fuses (permanent damage.) In addition, a code on the CPU instructs the BIOS which cores on the CPU are usable.

Intel has developed a software system that can make a static change to the CPU's configuration. "The upgrade enables changes to the firmware (driven by the Intel® Active Management Technology Management Engine in the chipset) that in turn modify the hardware."

The actual mechanism is not described but I guess that the chipset is shorting some fuses on the CPU to *enable* the cache and hyperthreading.

This means that it is no longer necessary for the CPU manufacturers to permanently limit a CPU for marketing reasons. It's the same business model, just with more flexibility.

This is a positive change. It's better for the environment. If we can upgrade our CPUs there will be fewer CPUs created. If a consumer doesn't want to give Intel the full profit margin upfront, the consumer can pay later for it.

If people hate the idea of buying CPUs with locked features, they are not obligated to do so. I recently even paid about $10 extra to buy a Phenom X2 965 Black Edition with no multiplier locks. But I do have a $300 i7 920 with a locked multiplier, and a $140 Pentium D 905 with locked hyperthreading, and a $50 Celeron D with a locked cache, and a $230Geforce GTX 470 with locked cores, and even a $ i486sx-33 with a locked math coprocessor. Some of those locked bits actually would have worked; I'll never know. I do know that I got what I paid for.

Of the $50 upgrade fee, maybe $35 will go to the reseller and $15 to Intel. We will only see this technology used in low-end PCs sold in retail stores. Enthusiasts like us will only see it when our relatives or clients need help, or perhaps on low-end netbooks.

exactly! thank you for laying it out :)
 
Fail Intel, people will eventually find a hack and distribute this on the internet, with the internet and hackers, it is almost impossible to avoid cracks and hacks being leaked.
 
When process yields are low, nobody minds that chips with defective cores or cache are sold as lower end models. A Phenom X4 sells for 100% over cost, and Athlon X2 might only sell for 15% over cost.

When process yields are high, every chip could be made into a Phenom X4 but there is still demand for Athlon X2 for use in low-end systems. For market segmentation reasons some chips are made into Athlon X2s, so that AMD can sell more chips and make more overall profit.

To prevent remarking and other arbitrage, the disabling mechanism is a combination of shorting some fuses (permanent damage.) In addition, a code on the CPU instructs the BIOS which cores on the CPU are usable.

<snip>

That's great, but that is a bit of non sequitur.

Fabrication on a given process isn't perfect, binned chips ARE the result at the attempts to make wafers for the flagship model. The only extra costs incurred are marketing costs as you have to use these wafers in chips marketed differently than the flagship.

What you are proposing is that the fabrication process somehow becomes magically 100% perfect every time, and all flagship processors have fuses (similar to Atmel ATmega and PIC chips) that determine clock speed. Well, you still have to market for lower end chips, disperse the upgrade data/redeem cards/website, and there is still the fact that chip fabrication isn't perfect. Photolithography at small processes is tough.

How it works now ---> fab flagship ---> if it works, it's a Phenom II ==> else, it is a lower series (defined by AMD's marketing and QC departments)

Your proposal ---> fab flagship ---> if it works, install fuses and it can be the lowest chip to the highest chip ==> else, conveniently ignore all chips that aren't up to flagship QC/status/failed batches or install fuses into them ~~~> end result: really weird marketing scheme

Your scheme would add one more step into a shaky process (photo-lithography) and still have the overhead of marketing. It will still cost chip makers the same cash to make the top end model and end up with failures, actually, even costing more money because you are selling perhaps $1000 processors for half the price with upgrades to fuses which can be reversed engineered by any CS/EE/IE/system design undergrad.

It does not follow.
 
There is nothing wrong with this course of action. This is just Intel trying to reduce the OEM price of their entry-level desktops so they can compete with AMD on all levels.

It's tough to make your multi-core processors on some of the most advanced fab tech in the world, and test, package and sell the whole shebang for under $50. But that's exactly what the OEMs would love - lower prices allow them to entice even the cheapest of customers. An upgrade card would allow this to happen: you sell the processor for almost nothing, expecting that a certain percentage of users will pay the upgrade cost. The OEM lowers the price of their computer so that Intel gets the sale instead of AMD, and Intel still makes money on the upgrade cards when users decide they need the extra performance.

I mean, OEMs already do this sort of thing with bundled software (bloatware) - they add it to the OS load to reduce the price of the computer. Some users remove the software while others buy full versions / maintenance plans. Obviously the bloatware pays for itself, or else companies would not continue to pay for it - so there's hope for this new Intel sales model.
 
How it works now ---> fab flagship ---> if it works, it's a Phenom II ==> else, it is a lower series (defined by AMD's marketing and QC departments)
The hardware vendor needs to disable the broken circuitry to make the chip functional. This is done by setting configuration straps, typically via a ROM or FUSE mechanism.

Your proposal ---> fab flagship ---> if it works, install fuses and it can be the lowest chip to the highest chip ==> else, conveniently ignore all chips that aren't up to flagship QC/status/failed batches or install fuses into them ~~~> end result: really weird marketing scheme
This is pretty much how it is done now. As I noted earlier there are several mechanisms (including fuses) which allow behaviour to be strapped. You can be sure that all chips already have a fuse bank to configure behaviour - this would require no change in the manufacturing process.

[...] with upgrades to fuses which can be reversed engineered by any CS/EE/IE/system design undergrad.
I'm very skeptical that any CS/EE/IE undergrad could blow a fuse implemented on the actual ASIC.
 
ARGGHHHH MATEY! 'Tis these Intel scumbags rippin' off common folks again! Fear not! Yer Captain CoolFace be sailin' the Seven Seas and came back to liberate ye! I reckoned their crew's never met Captain Coolface's motley hackers nor their keygens!

I sail into Intel's Sandy Bridge Lagoon with me greatest fleet, behold! the Northern Island Bulldozers! Their contraptions be fallin' apart, their engineers shall flee, their women shall be ours, and terror shall reign!

4149643268_f32dc0b1c3.jpg
 
The hardware vendor needs to disable the broken circuitry to make the chip functional. This is done by setting configuration straps, typically via a ROM or FUSE mechanism.


This is pretty much how it is done now. As I noted earlier there are several mechanisms (including fuses) which allow behaviour to be strapped. You can be sure that all chips already have a fuse bank to configure behaviour - this would require no change in the manufacturing process.


I'm very skeptical that any CS/EE/IE undergrad could blow a fuse implemented on the actual ASIC.

Yes, but the problem with this scheme is that not every Heka is actually a Deneb. They might make perfectly working Deneb a Heka, but at what occurrence? This entire selling scheme is learning towards or hoping that, more so than not:

  1. More Heka x3s are actually fully functional Denebs, just fused.
  2. We produce more Denebs than anticipated and our binned chip production is below a certain threshold.

The entire premise and I "get it" is that if we can unlock cores on certain chipsets AND the fact that not everyone wants to go out and buy a i7-980X for $1000. It might be a limited market. So the proposition is that we can sell a certain percentage of i7-980Xs as fused i7-970s (perhaps a poor example because Gulftown only has two chips AFAIK).

One of the problems you're going tor run into when you try to estimate supply and demand is that, okay, you as Intel might estimate only selling few i7-980X processors in May, then suddenly, in as early as June 1st, there is a really high demand for them. Shit. This fusing scheme effiectely decreased the stock of i7-980Xes (unless there is a method to unlock i7-970s, and then and you put them in a new i7-980x box?)

Second problem is that no, I don't expect undergrad EEs to reverse engineer the fuse system, depending on what level that it is implemented. If it turns into a scenario where you have an option of entering in or redeeming a code in Windows, then there might be a higher probable chance of said fuses to be reverse engineered. You don't even have to look as far as EEs, take a look at motherboard companies and ACC unlocking the AMD cores (faulty or not). --- This would actually be in benefit of people who want to exploit such a thing because under this sales paradigm because a lower end chip is guaranteed to have a mechanism to unlock it because it is the literal wolf-in-sheep's-clothing. I think more people would jump at the chance to exploit that.

Third, speaking of exploitation, selling me features already KNOWN to be in the physical product and giving me something like a scratch off code I buy in Wal-Mart to increase performance? OK, you can argue that this is similar to what AMD and Intel already do because some of those Hekas really are just a Deneb with cores disabled, because they need to increase the number of Heka processors to meet demand. The core difference is though, I bought that Heka without any reservation that it is what it is, a Heka, in terms of performance, no thought of upgrade -- and it is priced accordingly. The opposite situation we have is that AMD sells Hekas with full knowledge that they are indeed just Denebs, but they disclose this information and you can bet your ass they will be priced accordingly, because you have the added bonus of $200 scratch off cards to upgrade or whatever scheme they cook up.

You can also run into issues with labeling. Oh, you can upgrade this Heka! Oops, it's actually binned, those cores don't work! Our mistake!

I disagree with the notion that this somehow benefits the environment like the poster I responded to stated. I don't think this really benefits the consumer either.

So my thoughts? It is a bad idea that is only there to benefit the manufacturer and not the consumer and increases general paranoia of "buyer beware".
 
Back
Top