THis is alot too look at that in many terms, If you are not paying for the performance of the fully unleashed CPU and being budget minded this is a great option. IF they leave this option open to everyone they have saying it can do this when bought and it doesnt and having to spend extra money to do so, then that is wrong cause you didnt not get what you had bought from site purchase, or however that is called. This is also an interesting idea given if they release these ultra-multi-core cpus with 10plus, being able to get the system at half the price along due to the cpu cost might still be very beneficial in the long run, there is also software updates to help utilize the additional cores that might be able to help take some advantages in development in the time spans from other upgrades to accomdate the need and use of more cores more specific to the end user. The question would be then, What about the software? 6months later i unlock my computer finally and another version of the software im using is coming out, my previous version was more then able enough run and fit may needs but with the increase in performance now and additional software availible i can now double it, still at a loose, but how does this help me now? If lucky enough can purchase the update too the software in terms of version and maintain basically the same cost to expense ration on hardware and software needs without almost leaving the house or at least, not needing to purchase new hardware. Its a shorter sited benefit say for 2-4-6 cores. But when talking 10-12-48 cores its almost another story. Its still crappy in many seneses yes, but if you are buying a budget pc with upgrade options at a bargain, then the bargain at least continues its way through for some years. It they maintain normal business pratices and product market releases with and option series release with such options , basically the samething they've been doing, then their shouldnt be much an issue, cause you are still getting what you bought. Its just it has alot more to it. Should be mindful of the fact of such to not overburden yourself cause of it and go with what you need. And when it comes to gaming for me at least, thats gets harder to do cause you need all and now. Of course there are other aspects that need all and now but this one i can relate with the most, probably as with other posters on here as well.
- Status
nottheking
Distinguished
- Jan 5, 2006
- 311
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]Matthias99[/nom]In theory, there's nothing particularly wrong or uncommon with this approach.[/citation]
Well, the hilarious part, as I mentioned in my lengthy first-page comment, is that Intel has zero recourse against anyone "cracking" their CPUs. This includes any sort of DRM or other restrictions like Microsoft's "Windows Genuine Advantage," which would violate the consumer's rights under the First-Sale Doctrine. Such stuff is only even potentially permissible for copyrighted works (you can't copyright a CPU) is because of the DMCA, which applies specifically to copyrights.
[citation][nom]ang1dust[/nom]This is really a way to cut down on production.[/citation]
Actually, no it doesn't quite work that way. With software, it costs the vendor effectively nothing more to copy the whole thing; the cost for bandwidth is negligible here. But with hardware, in your example that means that EVERY desktop chip suddenly has to have the production cost of a Core i7, with all six cores running, all cache good, and capable of being stable at 3.33 GHz.
There happens to be a reason why Intel charges $1,000 for that very processor: it costs Intel hundreds of dollars to produce such a chip. The price of a CPU on its own scales proportionally with the size of the CPU die, so making a massive die with 6 cores and 12MB of L3 cache means fewer chips-per-wafer, which means higher per-chip costs.
Semiconductor makers have tactics to make a profit here. The main method is through scaling their designs to different sizes; if they make a 2-core, 4MB die, that means it takes roughly 1/3 the size, and hence, three times the number of chips per wafer, and approximately a THIRD the production cost.
The other part of the equation is binning chips according to their capabilities: some turn out better than others, capable of reaching higher speeds while stable; any overclocker knows that chip yields are random, and hence their overclocking results with a CPU can vary even with identical cooling. Ditto for "locked" cores: they're typically done because damage/flaws on the die (which are commonplace) can render part of the chip unuseable. In single-core times, this meant throwing out the entire chip, but now if the damage is all in one/two/etc. cores, they simply "lock out" those cores and hence the damage doesn't matter. The only reason "unlockable" CPUs exist at all is because occasionally, it's still profitable to bin a perfectly-good quad-core die as a dual/triple-core CPU to keep up with market demand for that segment; better to only make reduced profit than to not have that un-wanted quad-core sitting on your hands while your competitor sells a chip instead.
Overall, the above outlines why such an idea is, financially, downright stupid. Yes, Intel may make a killing on a Core i7 980X, but that's not because it's cheap to produce; they still run perhaps $400-700US to make per, while they SELL for $1,000US; it's $300-600US profit, which is high in absolute terms, but low in realtive terms, being only 42-150%.
It's foolish to try selling a product for less than it costs to make. And no, it's faulty logic to assume that Intel could recoup their losses through the profits they made on users actually "upgrading" their CPUs. This is because the vast majority of the market is at the low-end; you're forgetting that the users don't fall into two groups; not everyone would either crack or pay Intel's scam fee. The vast majority simply wouldn't bother at all, so they just paid $100US for a dual-core CPU that cost $400US for Intel to make. Remember that enthusiasts like us only make up a tiny percentage of the market, (probably less than 1%) and that even among us, only a handful actually have a shiny hexa-core CPU.
[citation][nom]ang1dust[/nom]The crack codes will be all over but id love to see someone come up with a poll that shows how many people actually use "cracked" software vs legit. Im sure the cracked is high but when you in clude businesses i think its actually quite small. You cant "PHYSICALLY" crack the processor so if they allow for software cracks i think it can turn into microsofts genuine problem. Every version since xp has been crackable...[/citation]
First off, as I mentioned in my first-page comment, hardware cracking, in and of itself, breaks no laws. The DMCA only applies to copyrighted work; hardware cannot be copyrighted.
Secondly, attempting to enforce something like WGA on hardware would actually be illegal, as the vendor (Intel) would be violating patent law; as I described, there's something called the "First Sale Doctrine;" once that chip is sold by Intel, Intel has ZERO rights to say on what's done with it. So any attempt to dictate or control what happens with it would not be permitted by Patent law. Common sense agrees: Intel sold it, so they don't own it.
Also, you CAN perform physical hacking/cracking, as adding new circuits does not require spending hundreds of millions of dollars developing a whole new chip; it merely requires paying $10-100US to acquire a field-programmable gate array.
Well, the hilarious part, as I mentioned in my lengthy first-page comment, is that Intel has zero recourse against anyone "cracking" their CPUs. This includes any sort of DRM or other restrictions like Microsoft's "Windows Genuine Advantage," which would violate the consumer's rights under the First-Sale Doctrine. Such stuff is only even potentially permissible for copyrighted works (you can't copyright a CPU) is because of the DMCA, which applies specifically to copyrights.
[citation][nom]ang1dust[/nom]This is really a way to cut down on production.[/citation]
Actually, no it doesn't quite work that way. With software, it costs the vendor effectively nothing more to copy the whole thing; the cost for bandwidth is negligible here. But with hardware, in your example that means that EVERY desktop chip suddenly has to have the production cost of a Core i7, with all six cores running, all cache good, and capable of being stable at 3.33 GHz.
There happens to be a reason why Intel charges $1,000 for that very processor: it costs Intel hundreds of dollars to produce such a chip. The price of a CPU on its own scales proportionally with the size of the CPU die, so making a massive die with 6 cores and 12MB of L3 cache means fewer chips-per-wafer, which means higher per-chip costs.
Semiconductor makers have tactics to make a profit here. The main method is through scaling their designs to different sizes; if they make a 2-core, 4MB die, that means it takes roughly 1/3 the size, and hence, three times the number of chips per wafer, and approximately a THIRD the production cost.
The other part of the equation is binning chips according to their capabilities: some turn out better than others, capable of reaching higher speeds while stable; any overclocker knows that chip yields are random, and hence their overclocking results with a CPU can vary even with identical cooling. Ditto for "locked" cores: they're typically done because damage/flaws on the die (which are commonplace) can render part of the chip unuseable. In single-core times, this meant throwing out the entire chip, but now if the damage is all in one/two/etc. cores, they simply "lock out" those cores and hence the damage doesn't matter. The only reason "unlockable" CPUs exist at all is because occasionally, it's still profitable to bin a perfectly-good quad-core die as a dual/triple-core CPU to keep up with market demand for that segment; better to only make reduced profit than to not have that un-wanted quad-core sitting on your hands while your competitor sells a chip instead.
Overall, the above outlines why such an idea is, financially, downright stupid. Yes, Intel may make a killing on a Core i7 980X, but that's not because it's cheap to produce; they still run perhaps $400-700US to make per, while they SELL for $1,000US; it's $300-600US profit, which is high in absolute terms, but low in realtive terms, being only 42-150%.
It's foolish to try selling a product for less than it costs to make. And no, it's faulty logic to assume that Intel could recoup their losses through the profits they made on users actually "upgrading" their CPUs. This is because the vast majority of the market is at the low-end; you're forgetting that the users don't fall into two groups; not everyone would either crack or pay Intel's scam fee. The vast majority simply wouldn't bother at all, so they just paid $100US for a dual-core CPU that cost $400US for Intel to make. Remember that enthusiasts like us only make up a tiny percentage of the market, (probably less than 1%) and that even among us, only a handful actually have a shiny hexa-core CPU.
[citation][nom]ang1dust[/nom]The crack codes will be all over but id love to see someone come up with a poll that shows how many people actually use "cracked" software vs legit. Im sure the cracked is high but when you in clude businesses i think its actually quite small. You cant "PHYSICALLY" crack the processor so if they allow for software cracks i think it can turn into microsofts genuine problem. Every version since xp has been crackable...[/citation]
First off, as I mentioned in my first-page comment, hardware cracking, in and of itself, breaks no laws. The DMCA only applies to copyrighted work; hardware cannot be copyrighted.
Secondly, attempting to enforce something like WGA on hardware would actually be illegal, as the vendor (Intel) would be violating patent law; as I described, there's something called the "First Sale Doctrine;" once that chip is sold by Intel, Intel has ZERO rights to say on what's done with it. So any attempt to dictate or control what happens with it would not be permitted by Patent law. Common sense agrees: Intel sold it, so they don't own it.
Also, you CAN perform physical hacking/cracking, as adding new circuits does not require spending hundreds of millions of dollars developing a whole new chip; it merely requires paying $10-100US to acquire a field-programmable gate array.
spectrewind
Distinguished
- Mar 25, 2009
- 194
- 0
- 18,630
[citation][nom]zipzoomflyhigh[/nom]Internet Authorization and on chip anti-virus. What's the pc world coming to? AMD do not fall to the dark side.[/citation]
But they have cookies.... ;o)
But they have cookies.... ;o)
Situations like this are inevitable, because in this rapid growth all-or-nothing telecommunications market Intel is toying with, the big competitors are already doing it. Apple is making millions by releasing an ipod nano upgrade every couple of days, and now AMD is cozying up to Steve and his all-consuming horde. To keep up with the way everybody else seems to be pulling money out of consumers like candy from a pinata, Intel is forced to cheat us in the same way.
dalauder
Distinguished
- Aug 30, 2010
- 356
- 0
- 18,960
Quit calling Intel greedy. They, just like AMD, bin chips and many have greater potential than their branding. All they're doing is throwing an "upgradeable" label on binned chips that tested higher and leaving themselves the possibility of earning money on a new easy-upgrade system at no cost to them.
I know if my Athlon X2 let me pay $30 and upgrade to a Phenom X2 last year, I'd have been happy it came with that option.
And there's no way to say enthusiasts will learn how to crack it. Who can add cash to an Athlon? Or will the upgrade be less significant than I'm thinking?
I know if my Athlon X2 let me pay $30 and upgrade to a Phenom X2 last year, I'd have been happy it came with that option.
And there's no way to say enthusiasts will learn how to crack it. Who can add cash to an Athlon? Or will the upgrade be less significant than I'm thinking?
blackfire1
Distinguished
- Sep 22, 2010
- 4
- 0
- 18,510
yea... so "in testing" at best buy means coming to a wal-mart near you. I don't want to buy a sandwich and then have to pay someone to open the damn thing.
redraider89
Distinguished
- Feb 4, 2009
- 41
- 0
- 18,580
[citation][nom]Miyasashi[/nom]If for instance the CPU's are sold 50 dollars cheaper than the actual value and you're not sure if you need the extra power you'll save some money.But if it's overpriced and you have to pay extra... well you know what I'm trying to say.[/citation]
I think you hit the most important issue about this, which is what are the prices involved in this. How much is the base price that you will be adding an additional $50 to. I doubt that Intel will give you much for $50, as in making your i5 an i7 for $50 more.
I think you hit the most important issue about this, which is what are the prices involved in this. How much is the base price that you will be adding an additional $50 to. I doubt that Intel will give you much for $50, as in making your i5 an i7 for $50 more.
shin0bi272
Distinguished
- Nov 20, 2007
- 271
- 0
- 18,930
marciocattini
Distinguished
- Sep 15, 2010
- 10
- 0
- 18,560
No offense to others opinions but being on a tight budget the core i3 was my weapon of choice when the time came to buy a new desktop. Over here in Brazil the prices are over the roof given the high tax government charges on imports. To have the ability to "upgrade it" to a core i5 by enabling turbo boost in the future sounds pretty good since i wouldn´t have to purchase a new processor or void my warranty in order to get a cpu upgrade.
anthonyas01
Distinguished
- Apr 3, 2009
- 5
- 0
- 18,510
You shortsighted fools...this is probably restricted to a specific line of oem processors only available to specific oem's...furthermore, this is actually a good idea...I don't know many enthusiasts that get their systems from oem's so this probably doesn't affect us...can u imagine how convenient and, well, nice it would be for grandma and grandpa or anyone else who isn't computer savvy to be able to get more processing power if they needed it just by purchasing this voucher and running the update utility...sweet.
I know I'm being presumptuous in how they plan to implement this, but Intel wouldn't be dumb enough to do this on a wider scale...would they?
I know I'm being presumptuous in how they plan to implement this, but Intel wouldn't be dumb enough to do this on a wider scale...would they?
anthonyas01
Distinguished
- Apr 3, 2009
- 5
- 0
- 18,510
[citation][nom]anthonyas01[/nom]You shortsighted fools...this is probably restricted to a specific line of oem processors only available to specific oem's...furthermore, this is actually a good idea...I don't know many enthusiasts that get their systems from oem's so this probably doesn't affect us...can u imagine how convenient and, well, nice it would be for grandma and grandpa or anyone else who isn't computer savvy to be able to get more processing power if they needed it just by purchasing this voucher and running the update utility...sweet.I know I'm being presumptuous in how they plan to implement this, but Intel wouldn't be dumb enough to do this on a wider scale...would they?[/citation]
BTW, sorry if anyone else took offense to my "shortsighted fools comment"...I was teasing but I forget the net doesn't accommodate MY sense of humor very well.
BTW, sorry if anyone else took offense to my "shortsighted fools comment"...I was teasing but I forget the net doesn't accommodate MY sense of humor very well.
anthonyas01
Distinguished
- Apr 3, 2009
- 5
- 0
- 18,510
Intel, Microsoft, ibm, compaq, warner and many more evil corporations own a patent to limit performance on hardware.. So greedy that they want your skin for there ferrari seats : http
/patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,536,726.PN.&OS=PN/7,536,726&RS=PN/7,536,726
/patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,536,726.PN.&OS=PN/7,536,726&RS=PN/7,536,726- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question What’s the Best Offline Mobile Game You’ve Played?- Started by jasongrimes
- Replies: 1
-
Solved! What is causing..my New high end (4090 Gpu) laptop, to crash sudden!...plz help
- Started by AsusRogstrix 16 RTX4090!
- Replies: 20
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter