Intel's test: buy the PC, then pay for more speed

Sep 21, 2010 By JORDAN ROBERTSON , AP Technology Writer

(AP) -- What if you bought a house and were told there's a secret rooftop deck you'll have to pay extra to access? If you're shopping for a personal computer this holiday season, you might get that kind of proposition from an unlikely source: Intel Corp., the world's biggest maker of personal computer processors.

Intel is including Pentium chips that are better than advertised in some low-end desktop computers. But to unlock their full power, buyers will need to a pay an extra fee.

The company says the program will enable people who have bought inexpensive PCs to upgrade them cheaply, through the Internet.

It's only a test so far, with the goal of gathering feedback.

News of the test has slipped onto technology blogs, and has rankled some hardcore techies because it asks people to pay extra for things the chips are already capable of doing.

"Intel is exploring a way to give customers the flexibility to determine the level of performance they want in their processor, without having to change hardware," Intel said in a statement.

People upgrade lots of things on their computers, but most typically won't swap out the , which acts as a PC's "brain." For Intel, the business model it could provide an extra revenue stream , and it costs it very little to include a better chip.

But needs to please not just consumers, but PC makers. They might not like the prospect of one of their most important suppliers helping PC buyers not buy a new PC.

Explore further: German supercomputer is a world champion in saving engergy

2.4 /5 (14 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

New Low-Power Intel Pentium M And Intel Celeron M Processors

Jul 20, 2004

Intel Corporation today expanded the Intel® Pentium® M processor and Intel® Celeron® M processor families with products aimed at the mini-notebook, sub-notebook and tablet PC segments that represent small mobile PCs typically ...

Intel Celeron D Processor Now Available

Jun 24, 2004

Intel Corporation today introduced the Intel® Celeron® D processor for desktop PCs. This processor line represents a new generation of Intel technology for desktop value market segments. Intel also unveiled ...

Recommended for you

Namibia prepares for Africa's first e-vote

5 hours ago

Namibia will vote in Africa's first electronic ballot Friday, a general election that will usher in a new president and quotas to put more women in government.

GoGlove wearable aims to control life's soundtracks

7 hours ago

Technology creatives are seeing the key attraction in wearables as being in solutions that save the user from fumbling around with the phone to make app adjustments or changes, or from repeatedly taking it ...

Amazon cuts Fire phone price to ignite sales

7 hours ago

Amazon on Wednesday slashed the price of Fire mobile phones that stalled after launch early this year, becoming a drag on the US online retail titan's bottom line.

User comments : 62

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Megadeth312
5 / 5 (13) Sep 21, 2010
fail.

hackers will find a way to get max speed from said chips without paying.
Mesafina
5 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2010
Money grab will inspire people to feel justified in cracking it themselves. Intel is shooting themselves in the foot. They should stay focused on creating good products and selling them at reasonable costs, and people will remain loyal.
CreepyD
5 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2010
Sounds like a dumb idea. How many people do you know that don't want their PC to be as fast as possible?
People will end up feeling ripped off if it's advertised as being 'locked' to a slower speed than it can handle on purpose.
Resonance
5 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2010
I disagree with Intel's move completely. It cries out that they are desperate for some free profits.

On top of this, they have recently released their new Sandy Bridge chipset which obliterates the older Pentium chipset... I believe their cheapest Sandy Bridge will start at $79 (Dual core operating higher than 3GHz.)

So why do this Intel? WHY?! It makes you look foolish!

Btw, maybe the author could inform us how much the key to the treasure chest costs!
axemaster
4.5 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2010
This may work, but it'll feel very offensive...
CouchP
5 / 5 (4) Sep 21, 2010
Remember that little "Turbo" button on the 486 to boost from 33mhz to 66mhz? Did any of us actually choose to run it in 33mhz?
georgert
5 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2010
I'll give it two weeks before the crack shows up on Pirate Bay.
jimbo92107
3 / 5 (4) Sep 21, 2010
Microslop is already making my computer slower than it could be. Now, Intel promises to do the same thing. How slow can we go?
dirk_bruere
5 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2010
Hello AMD
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2010
A long time ago IBM used to sell a line printer available in two speeds, standard or high speed. If one bought standard, one could later upgrade for another $7,500. This was accomplished by an IBM tech showing up and changing one small gear on the motor drive; a gear costing IBM almost nothing of course.

Nothing wrong with offering such variants to the marketplace at whatever price the market values the advantage to be worth. But I agree that these days the hackers will undermine most if not all of these schemes.
Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Sep 21, 2010
I think that this is probably just test marketing--the list of other devices and products that this can be applied to is endless.
Onlt the least savvy customers will buy this junk, and perhaps a very small percentage of them will feel as though they got a superior deal.
I predict a massive flop, accompanied by consumer outrage at the inevitably smarmy, misleading, bait/switch sales tactics.
bottomlesssoul
5 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2010
I dunno about the comments here, everyone seems to predict it's failure.

Baush and Lomb still make the array of different wear length contact lenses which are identical except for packaging. It's been highly successful for 15 years.
frukc
5 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2010
isn't that the same company who are doing very well lately? i mean - intel's making more and more $$$. this maybe was very stupid marketing experiment in few selected markets. but it shows that big corporations like intel don't care about people, they are charging us not because something really costs so, but because they can! and we still will go and buy intel's products, because AMD isn't catching up! only competition can help us.
bg1
5 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2010
They're charging extra for something that incurs them no extra cost. Sounds sleazy to me. Who comes up with these ideas?
Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Sep 21, 2010
They're charging extra for something that incurs them no extra cost. Sounds sleazy to me. Who comes up with these ideas?


Overpaid neckties and beancounters, generally -the ones who stand to benefit the most from increased profitability-at-any-cost.
snwboardn
not rated yet Sep 21, 2010
I guess they are going to treat their microchips like the car dealership... ohhh 17k "well for that price we are going to have to take the automatic locks off..."

They have already been doing this without saying it outright... look at the I7 920 for 200 or you can get the I7 950... that is just an overclocked 920 for 200 more... Yea nothing new here... Now they are just getting lazy if they have some windows based bios overclocking software... who knows
Davinci_is_me
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2010
Marketing guys come up with this crp. It's just as bad as some software companies who are now charging an entire extra license fee per 2 computing threads.
cmn
1 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2010
Quit bitching, you'll get some extra processor speed on someone else's buck. ;)
Musashi
2 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2010
I'm not following much of these comments. Isn't the point, as advertised, that people can purchase a PC at a LOWER cost, and then upgrade it when more money is available to them? They're selling upgradable equipment at a price they don't really have to.
KillerKopy
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2010
Imagine if the auto companies decided to sell you a car that will only go 70MPH and you must pay extra if you want to go 80MPH or faster. What a joke Intel is. This is not the way to make people like intel. I will just buy AMD next time.
Musashi
3 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2010
I can imagine it fine if the 70MPH car is cheaper than the same car at 80MPH or faster, which I can upgrade later if I have the money for it. It seems to me this "detail" is being overlooked.
Musashi
3 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2010
Things cost what people are willing to pay for them, regardless of manufacture cost. This is where competition comes in. A PC with certain capabilities will cost X because the public pays for it, and the competition can't do better. This offers a possibility that some people may find appealing. Having upgradable equipment with potential beyond what they are willing to pay for at the moment. Some of you people need to get a clue...
Simonsez
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2010
@ Musashi
[quote]I can imagine it fine if the 70MPH car is cheaper than the same car at 80MPH or faster, which I can upgrade later if I have the money for it. It seems to me this "detail" is being overlooked.[/quote]
It is not an "upgrade" if the system is already built to accomodate the faster/better configuration and simply has a lock. What people have an issue with is that the computer is -fully capable- of going the upper speed; the company simply put a lock on it and said if you want the key, give us another few hundred dollars.

This is not a new concept; video game publishers (notably 2K Games and Activision, among others) have been shipping game discs that actually contain what they refer to as "Downloadable Content", but actually are locked portions of code that become unlocked when you pay the company more money and then they give you a key code.

If they ship me a disc, shouldn't EVERYTHING on that disc be mine upon purchase? Similarly with these locked computers.
Musashi
1 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2010
Whether or not the word is "upgrade" seems immaterial to the point.

---"What people have an issue with is that the computer is -fully capable- of going the upper speed; the company simply put a lock on it and said if you want the key, give us another few hundred dollars."---

And theoretically, I think that's perfectly legitimate. It's simply a way to keep customers, providing the possibility to, if not "upgrade", unlock the hardware when the extra money typically asked for such specs is available. You may have to spend more if you're selling used hardware to buy something better, as opposed to paying to unlock potential.

---"If they ship me a disc, shouldn't EVERYTHING on that disc be mine upon purchase? Similarly with these locked computers."---

Depends on how much you originally pay, compared to what the competition offers WITHOUT "downloadable content" or hardware unlocks. To me, that's the key.
Musashi
1 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2010
The important thing to remember is that the chip is sold at a lower cost of what it would be at its maxed out potential. If you want to buy a maxed out chip, by all means do so. For this to be a good choice, paying for the unlock needs to save money when compared to selling the old chip and buying a new one.
JimB135
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2010
Wintel STILL made for nerds by nerds. Only nerdy overclockers and PC geeks have a geekgasm when you start talking about clock speeds, overclocking and unlocking processor capability. The general public just wants a good computer for a good price that does what they need it to do. Then when it gets slow due to bloatware, malware and viruses they will think it's dead and it's time to get a new one.

This idea may appeal to the PC enthusiast crowd. Everyone else, not so much.
Musashi
2 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2010
The idea may appeal to the crowd that buys components and upgrade their machines. It's no revelation that others will not be interested... but nice of you to point out the obvious. And btw, if you're posting on Physorg you're technically a nerd as far as a lot of people are concerned. Eye of the beholder and all...
Ravenrant
5 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2010
This is nothing more than a money grab. What's their business model? Get rid of a low end chip and just sell the high end chip. Saves manufacturing, design and stocking costs of chips (and PC's) lowering the price of the high end chip so that they could sell it for less, no, wait we'll sell it for less but restrict it's function and then make anyone who wants the full function pay us more money. And since the free market mechanics don't work for Intel because they basically have no competition they can get away with screwing their customers like all companies in that position (like Microsoft and Autodesk to name a couple).

This is like buying a Corvette with 4 spark plugs disconnected and calling it a Chevette. Then later having to pay extra to get that other 200 hp and call it a Corvette when the reality is you bought a Corvette in the first place.
Bob_B
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2010
Now, I'm glad I didn't invest with them as I had been planning. Idiotic marketing creeps must have thought this up.
El_Nose
5 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2010
THere are aome good comments here and some horrible one's i would like to examine a couple in context of this article

from Musashi
I can imagine it fine if the 70MPH car is cheaper than the same car at 80MPH or faster


well all luxury car models are just the same model car one step down with all the wiring attached. If you have an SE (standard edition) of a vehicle and open the hood you may notice a lot of whires that go nowhere - those are for people who baought the luxury car and its addon's and gadets -- and if you pay more you can have them installed -- this is an old concept on a different product

Okay you like AMD - go for it - but many AMD two core processors have a swtich in them that locks out the other two cores from being used -- look it up

Intel is just doing something that was inevitable - used to be the company tested the processor and whatever its max speed timed out to be mandated what type it was
El_Nose
5 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2010
continued ....

such as a processor that tests at 2.8 Ghz being sold as a 2.5 Ghz processor and the one that tests out at 3.1 Ghz being sold as a 3.0 Ghz processor.

Now Intel is getting to a point where it's fabrication process is going to start eliminated these discrepencies in speed across a product line -- when you are in the business of controlling a few billion tranistors the size of a large molecue your effeciency in controlling every molecule is going to get better.

So very soon all of there processors in the same line will be identical -- its the cheapest way to produce the most of a product -- and if they can then limit its functionalilty by consumer demand then that is how to run a profitable business.

All these people are complaining that they are getting scammed out of money -- but honestly you can overclock almost every processor the only difference is Intel will be locking that OC ability away.

Musashi
2 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2010
@Ravenrant
---"This is nothing more than a money grab. What's their business model? Get rid of a low end chip and just sell the high end chip."---

So what? There's no practical difference. You get the performance you pay for.

---"Saves manufacturing, design and stocking costs of chips (and PC's) lowering the price of the high end chip so that they could sell it for less, no, wait we'll sell it for less but restrict it's function and then make anyone who wants the full function pay us more money. And since the free market mechanics don't work for Intel because they basically have no competition they can get away with screwing their customers like all companies in that position (like Microsoft and Autodesk to name a couple)."---

These complains are for an entirely different issue, not for whether or not this system helps save consumer money and time, with all other things being equal.
Musashi
3 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2010
continued...

---"This is like buying a Corvette with 4 spark plugs disconnected and calling it a Chevette."---

No... it isn't. They're still calling it a Corvette. It's just a Corvette with Chevette performance, and you paid accordingly. Instead of selling that Corvette and buying a new one, probably losing money in the process, you can conveniently pay the extra amount and then have Corvette performance.

---"Then later having to pay extra to get that other 200 hp and call it a Corvette when the reality is you bought a Corvette in the first place."---

No, you bought a Corvette with Chevette performance, which costs less than a Corvette with Corvette performance.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2010
The best part of Intel's new model is that the law protects the consumer working around their lockouts. The new consumer use statements involving phones and "jailbreaking" will allow people to hack their chips without fear of reprisal.

Anyone remember the old celeron fiasco? You buy the bargain basement chip and 15 minutes with a pencil lead would enable you to own a midgrade/highend chip without any issues. Looks like they're asking for it again.
Jimbaloid
5 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2010
Chip manufacturers have for a long time produced higher spec chips then 'blown some fuses' to make a lower spec product - disabling some cores or cache. There have even been hard drives artificially restricted to be sold as a lower capacity version. It is an uncomfortable truth for the consumer, who will find it a little hard to comprehend why. Outwardly it seems wasteful and understandably little mention is made of the practice normally. The difference was that those lost capabilities had always been lost, now Intel is replacing fuses with software unlocking (microcode update?) The margins on each low spec CPU are probably made slimmer when sold to the OEM and assembled to a system. But then the upgrade comes directly from Intel, for which the fee will likely dwarf any conventional profit margin they could have got from the OEM channel.
Simonsez
not rated yet Sep 22, 2010
The best part of Intel's new model is that the law protects the consumer working around their lockouts. The new consumer use statements involving phones and "jailbreaking" will allow people to hack their chips without fear of reprisal.

Anyone remember the old celeron fiasco? You buy the bargain basement chip and 15 minutes with a pencil lead would enable you to own a midgrade/highend chip without any issues. Looks like they're asking for it again.


@ Skeptic

That is precisely what I was thinking as I sat here shaking my head at some of the comments. The reality in this century is that if one waits long enough, hackers will discover and document the process for "jailbreaking" these Intel-locked chips, and the wise will wait for this to happen and then bypass Intel's money grab. I do not argue their ability or the morality of this particular marketing ploy; if people are willing to pay, let them pay.
baudrunner
not rated yet Sep 22, 2010
This sounds like the kind of idea that Bill Gates would come up with.
droid001
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2010
The Truth is, consumers loosing interest in CPU. E8400, Q8400 or Core i5 650 - it just strange numbers.
Apps, mobility, cloud - that's the future!
Musashi
3 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2010
Suppose you people invent something with a given manufacture cost. You will set a price that will allow for the most profit, considering all the factors. This price will still be too high for some people. Sad but true. Now, on many things this cannot be helped. Less wealthy people simply will not enjoy the product, to any degree. The company cannot simply sell it cheaper, as who was paying more will demand to pay as much. Duh... It is still a business after all, and the point is to make money. The only profitable option to reach less wealthy people, without having everyone paying less than they would be otherwise willing, is to offer a limited version of the same product. It's a no brainer. Realistically, this is the only option to reach people with less wealth without the company losing money in the process.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2010
The only profitable option to reach less wealthy people, without having everyone paying less than they would be otherwise willing, is to offer a limited version of the same product. It's a no brainer. Realistically, this is the only option to reach people with less wealth without the company losing money in the process.
Or you could simply spend some money on research and devlopment, adjust your supply chains, become more efficient, and produce a product for lower cost.

There's no singular solution, especially your solution.
Musashi
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2010
Or you could simply spend some money on research and development, adjust your supply chains, become more efficient, and produce a product for lower cost.


But that's a different issue. If the production is made at a lower cost, units will cost less, and more people will be able to buy, with the company making proportionally as much. That is always the goal. There will always be people that cannot afford the level that makes the most profit for the company. Some complains here have no bearing on how a company markets a product based on CURRENT manufacture costs. People seem to be complaining about this new marketing, instead of complaining about little research and development, or other factors that influence the most profitable price for the company. They always charge as much as they can, given their current conditions. I think most companies do the same. Wouldn't you?
Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2010
Suppose you people invent something with a given manufacture cost. You will set a price that will allow for the most profit, considering all the factors. This price will still be too high for some people. Sad but true. Now, on many things this cannot be helped. Less wealthy people simply will not enjoy the product, to any degree. The company cannot simply sell it cheaper, as who was paying [...]Realistically, this is the only option to reach people with less wealth without the company losing money in the process.


Alternatively, you can offer the full-speed product at a price that most can afford, keep more peope employed, and make about the same amount of money in a somewhat longer timeframe.
Who am I kidding...far more important that Execs get fat bonuses and investors double-digit dividends at the end of the Quarter. This is all about maximizing profit in the short term, pure and simple.

winthrom
5 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2010
There is a little calculus problem I remember. An apartment building has 100 apartments. All the rents are the same. The landlord wants greater profits so s/he raises the rent. A few apartments go empty. The landlord is making more money than before anyhow because the rent rise covered the lost rents. This process goes on until the landlord has maximized the profits. Once the landlord has established the standard renter loss for each rent raise, s/he could calculate the maximum profit instead of experimenting.

Intel is now planning to rent the empty apartments by nailing a room closed and saying that this is a smaller place to live. Probably OK if Intel owns the chip and you rent it. But not after you buy it. (Think Condo)
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2010
The company cannot simply sell it cheaper, as who was paying more will demand to pay as much. Duh... It is still a business after all, and the point is to make money.
But that's a different issue. If the production is made at a lower cost, units will cost less, and more people will be able to buy, with the company making proportionally as much. That is always the goal.
So which is it Mushashi? Mercantilism or Corporatism? They can't both be the goal.
Musashi
2 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2010
So which is it Mushashi? Mercantilism or Corporatism? They can't both be the goal.


The goal of any company is to make the most amount of money, legally. This precludes selling products at lower costs than optimal just to cater to the less fortunate. It's with this basic premise indulged that I see this new alternative as a viable option to less wealthy consumers. I think it's much more honest than "blowing some fuses to make a lower spec product - disable some cores or cache" as previously mentioned, but it translates as the same. I really don't get what all the fuss is about. If "corporate greed" is the issue, then Intel is hardly distinguished, and that still has no bearing on whether or not this alternative is better for less wealthy consumers, that don't buy high end systems on a whim, and actually consider what they need at the moment, and what they hope to have down the line.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2010
I think it's much more honest than "blowing some fuses to make a lower spec product - disable some cores or cache" as previously mentioned, but it translates as the same.
Except there's a clear history of doing exactly that in both the industry and from this company in particular. It's a marketing ploy to offload overproduced products that the wealthy don't buy as they do not identify with Intel's goals.
Musashi
1 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2010
Except there's a clear history of doing exactly that in both the industry and from this company in particular. It's a marketing ploy to offload overproduced products that the wealthy don't buy as they do not identify with Intel's goals.


Again, that concerns the inherent greediness of business corporations, not whether or not this business model is better or worse for consumers, wealthy or less wealthy, INDULGING that inherent greediness. I keep reiterating that I'm considering the model based on how things are, not on how they should be from a consumer point of view. Heck, I'd like everything to be free. I even think that if the wealth allocated to the megabillionaires and their families was distributed evenly across the world, everyone could have a high-end PC. No need for money or work either... but I digress...
Sanescience
5 / 5 (1) Sep 24, 2010
One would think marketing types savvy in human psychology would know better. If what their looking for is ease of upgrading, why not build a mother board and cpu that is easier to upgrade? Maybe even switchable without opening the case.
_nigmatic10
not rated yet Sep 25, 2010
If one expends the time, money and effort to make a product preform less, is it really cheaper?
mg1
not rated yet Sep 25, 2010
he problem they may face is the new regulations that are being drawn up that state what ownership of a product entails.

It is currently looking at software but will soon apply to hardware.

When a customer buys a product they are entitled to that product, without the need to contact someone to enable it.

Hence the idea of someone who can go out-of-business holding a key that could be locked away for good is probably going to fall foul of these new expanding regulations.

Anyways they have been doing this in servers for a while, where you enable extra processors etc.

I dont see anything wrong with it,except that this key needs to be linked to price depreciation and automatically given after 5 years free.

After 5 years most computer systems are falling apart, hardrives, monitors..none of it can last forever and needs to be scrapped.

Same with chips after 5 years the technology is so old it doesnt matter anymore.
CarolinaScotsman
5 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2010
Let's get this straight. They can put a faster chip in at no additional cost, because the faster chip really doesn't cost more. The only reason they can charge more for a faster chip is they control and manipulate the market. How about we sue the heck out of them and get our states' attorney generals to bring lawsuits to stop illegal market manipulation. How's that for a new business model?
Andrux
5 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2010
what the heck! We're going to be paying for a chip and not getting the power from it! it's like buying a hybrid car with only the gasoline engine working on it, but if u want a "real" hybrid monthly fees will be charged through paypal?? Quit mocking the consumers!!! we are the ones who must be served cause we are the ones PAYING for the disposable crap they sell us! I can buy a cow but i can't milk it?!?
cirrostratus
5 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2010
From Intel's perspective they are cleverly providing an upgrade to an existing product for a reasonable price, but from the perspective of every intelligent consumer, Intel sold them a deliberately hampered product and is now trying to charge them an additional fee to restore the product to what it originally was before they hampered it.
KBK
5 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2010
Intel have always been pricks, since day one. Pay attention. Expect nothing less than scamming and shifty eyed crap from Intel.

Good product? yes.

A-holes? Yes.
Husky
not rated yet Sep 26, 2010
i remember the days of drilling a little hole in your cheap 3.5" 720k whitelabel floppydisks so you could format them on standard 1.44 MB capicity, and with special dos driver even to 2,66 MB
jaseman125
not rated yet Sep 26, 2010
You are paying for the intellectual property - not for the physical parts. It's the same as buying Photoshop Lite rather than Photoshop Pro. The cost of producing the physical CD that it is supplied on is the same. It's about the company getting a return for the extra research/work that they had to do. A motherboard is generally just sand and copper, but it's the expertise to turn those raw materials into a motherboard that you pay for.
TheQuietMan
5 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2010
I have to go with the consensus of money grab, stupidly done at that. This isn't about intellectual property, this is entirely about crippling the product performance. It's like buying a hamburger, and oh, by the way, you want meat with that? It will affect their reputation, and given their competition, it will bite them on their posterior.

Remember the We Use Real Cheese ads? It will be a godsend to everyone who competes.
Sonhouse
5 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2010
Does anyone have figures? Unenhanced CPU speed V higher paid for speed? How much money are they talking about? For instance, if the CPU sold as a 3 gig machine then you pay the upgrade cost and it now goes to 3.2 gigs and costs 200 bucks, you wouldn't even see the difference in most programs so the 200 bucks would be a waste of money. So what is the before and after and what is the upgrade price?
Quantum_Conundrum
5 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2010
Capitalism is the greatest.

I think these ridiculous "monopoly style" abuses should be illegal.

To help stop this sort of nonsense, congress should pass a law requiring all companies to give their trade secrets to their competitors every so many years. We could pick a nice Biblical number like 7.

Every seven years the companies would be required to share everything they know about everything with everyone, free of charge.
Negative
1 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2010
geeez... people talk.

the comparison with cars is great. afaik, motor power for new cars is set by a chip. re-configure the chip, you get more power.

as about the intel processors, I definitely agree with the move. it's a law that software always gets complex so fast that it eats up resources (y compris computing power) like a black hole. take windows xp: three years ago it run more than ok on my dell inspiron which is desperately slow now, what about all service packs and whatnot. I would gladly pay 100 bucks for the upgrade instead of thousands for a new laptop.
Javinator
5 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2010
the comparison with cars is great. afaik, motor power for new cars is set by a chip. re-configure the chip, you get more power.


Actually the comparison isn't that great at all.

Limiters on your cars are either there because of laws or liabilities. A company will make a car that can go really fast, but prevents your from doing it by having a limiter. By you removing the limiter, the automobile manufacturer is not liable for any injuries or laws you break with their vehicle nor any damage you do to the engine. It's more akin to overclocking your processor (which is free and is done at the risk of the computer owner) than what Intel is proposing.

Intel is essentially releasing a chip whose performance is being purposely restricted (they're uncderclocking). They're not restricting it for liability or law purposes. They're restricting it so they can charge more for an "upgrade" which actually costs them nothing more since the hardware is already in your computer/laptop.
mrlewish
5 / 5 (1) Sep 29, 2010
reminds me of the old, I poison you and I have the only antidote scam. How much are you willing to pay for that antidote? The only real solution is to immediately attack the one that poisoned you taking no quarter.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.