Can someone explain what locked/unlocked mean in a CPU?

[EvilHamster]

Hi guys, the title is a bit misleading, I could not formulate it better in a line I am sorry.

I DO know that unlocked means that basically the CPU multiplier is well... unlocked. But I know it only on a very, VERY amateur like level.

I have always been under the impression that a CPU was by default locked if you will, and that with additional effort, had to be unlocked. But now I read a few things that make me think otherwise.

So my question is, is there any additional effort required to unlock a CPU by the manufacturer?

Say the 3570 and 3570k. Does it need more effort from INTEL to unlock that chip, or do they just decided to lock some and unlock others. If so, then why would they not unlock all? What advantage could there be in having a locked CPU?

Again, I would understand if it took more effort to make an unlocked version, as these who are not interested in OC/ing would save money, but if it does not require more effort, why even make locked once?

 

[csf60]

The effort is actually made locking them up. When intel or AMD develop a processor, their prototypes are unlocked, and they change voltages and multipliers to test them. Then, when releasing the final version to the world, they lock that multipliers so that you have to buy a more expensive processor to get more performance.
If they wouldn't lock them, you could just buy a i3-3220 and overclock 100MHz for no cost to get a i3-3240, for example.

 

[EvilHamster]

Thats exactly what I heard. And I find that kinda hard to believe. There must be some other reason why they do that, cause I mean, why even sell the cheap version then? Besides, would it not be in their interest to have better price/performance then their competition? I mean there are not many companies in the world who go through effort just to ruin their product, so that they can sell the standard version more expensively. It usually is not a profitable way of "beeing cheap". Its usually better just to build a cheaper version then wreck a good one. So why not just use cheaper material/worse architecture to make a cheaper chip?

I mean about your comparison, I would buy the i3-3220 over i3-3240 if it didnt just have 10% more performance locked, but also overclocked, i.e. would overheat less etc.


Sry about the rant... I just dont get it. I mean you would not build a ferrari and then go with a sledgehammer on it, and sell it as a KiWi...

 

[csf60]

They sell the cheap versions because not everybody has 200 hundred dollars to spend on a CPU and they maybe don't even need that power in the first place. Of course it's in their interest to have the best price/performance, but you have to offer products that span several budgets, 50$, 100$, 150$... So that everyone can choose what they need.
About using a cheaper material, your idea is good, but that is not possible because of how production of these chips work.

For example, intel develops a new CPU architecture, for example Ivy Bridge. When the technology is new, some errors are made in this manufacture. They test those cores one by one, and those with a bad core are locked to 2 cores and branded as i3 or pentiums, those that have no errors are branded as i5 or i7.
Not every i3 is equal either, so they later test every CPU to determine their stable speeds. If the chip is stable at 3.4GHz, it is sold as a 3240, 3.3GHz as a 3220 and 3.2GHz as a 3210.

However, as the manufacturing process gets better, less errors are made, and less low end cpus are being made. This means, that to keep selling i3s, they HAVE to lock cores of a perfectly capable i5. If they didn't lock that cores, anyone could buy a i3-3220 for 130$ and unlock it to be a 210$ i5-3570. No one would buy high end cpus. The same happens with multipliers.
When AMD athlon x2 were sold, AMD didn't hide the option to unlock its cores, and it was a common practise to unlock 2 more cores to have an athlon x4.

 

[EvilHamster]

For example, intel develops a new CPU architecture, for example Ivy Bridge. When the technology is new, some errors are made in this manufacture. They test those cores one by one, and those with a bad core are locked to 2 cores and branded as i3 or pentiums, those that have no errors are branded as i5 or i7.
Not every i3 is equal either, so they later test every CPU to determine their stable speeds. If the chip is stable at 3.4GHz, it is sold as a 3240, 3.3GHz as a 3220 and 3.2GHz as a 3210.

O.O I had no idea about this. I thought CPUs were designed to either have 2 or 4 cores, again kinda like cars are designed to have 2 seats or 4. I didn't knew that all had 4 cores, just some were broken or something like that... sounds very odd .....
As well as with speed....


I mean if thats how they think is good for marketing, then who am I to argue But I still wonder, if it is profitable compared to the cost of production and inovation to sell what is effectivley an i7 as an i3 for 130$... If it is, I wonder if selling only i7 and that for 130$ would not within a year blow away all competion...

anyways. Thanks for clearing things up... I had no idea...