Intel's bound to fail idea! - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Intel's bound to fail idea!

fridgehead Avatar
6y, 2m agoPosted 6 years, 2 months ago
So intel's dreadful idea, anyone think it will work? I would bet it will be hacked and fail within 3weeks of being released, what does anyone else think?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11379089
Tags:
fridgehead Avatar
6y, 2m agoPosted 6 years, 2 months ago
Options

All Comments

(26) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
lol, what scavengers
#2
all i can say is lol
#3
its like selling you a ham sandwich and making sure you cant eat the ham in it until you pay more

Edited By: fridgehead on Sep 21, 2010 15:10: forgetting to add the ham!
#4
fridgehead
its like selling you the sandwich and making sure you cant eat the ham in it until you pay more

that story doesnt mention anything about ham.
#5
It's kinda like paying for DLC thats already on a game disc, some muppets will still pay for it
banned#6
Hope it gets hacked like a bitch.
#7
MinstrelMan
fridgehead
its like selling you the sandwich and making sure you cant eat the ham in it until you pay more


that story doesnt mention anything about ham.


Valid point I forgot to add the ham
#8
It will no doubt be hacked, but its not really that different to what has happened for years anyway - they sell chips that are perfectly capable of higher performance capped to certain speeds for less money. The only difference with this over what they have done for years is they now say "okay, for £50 we'll remove the cap for you" - reality is its always been possible to do similar things (ie overclocking) anyway...
#9
It's a bit like having a processor that is capable of running much quicker but is limited until you cough up extra money.
#10
mr.potato_head
It's a bit like having a processor that is capable of running much quicker but is limited until you cough up extra money.

Which is what happens now.

As has been said above, most processors already have the technology in them to run much quicker, but then Intel cripple it and charge less for it.

So chip "A" might have 2M of cache and they charge £80 for it.

Chip "B" is exactly the same processor, but has 1M of cache crippled, so now it only has 1M of cache, and they charge £50 for it.

All Intel are saying is, if you buy the £50 CPU we will uncripple the other 1M of cache if you give us some money.

I think this is the way all CPUs will go in the future.

As an example, many new PCs and Laptops now come with Microsoft Office 2010 Starter (contains just Word and Excel).

But the whole of Office is already installed on the PC, you just need to pay money to Microsoft to unlock the bits you want.

Edited By: guilbert53 on Sep 21, 2010 16:04: Add
#11
it will never work, people wont be prepeared extra for what they should have already, plus it will be cracked within weeks and I cant see a way they would know if you have cracked it or not unless they require you to be connected to the internet all of the time which will never happen for a cpu.
#12
So unless this is cracked, overclocking is history unless you move to AMD components.

Doesn't seem likely.
#13
I heard rumours Intel were planning to stop all future over-clocking on their new processors due to what has been happening recently. All I can say now is.. AMD Fanboy in the house!
#14
This isn't a new idea. IBM used to do this on mainframes - except there it was a change of switches on the main board which made the machine run faster!

It won't be long before somebody works out a hack way of doing the "upgrade" for nothing. The only problem with that is it will probably invalidate the warranty - but how many will care about that?

I don't really see a problem with this approach. It should drive down the cost of the chips. Intel can make a single generic chip and then just turn on the features that you pay for. That could be extra cache, faster clock or even additional cores.
#15
they wouldnt dare
#16
This could push up sales of AMD a bit though.
#17
Microsoft sort of already does it with Windoze with the Home, Business and Ultimate versions, which are basically the same but with a few extra bells and whistles on the more expensive ones. I don't think it will be long before they ship a single Windows which just installs and/or runs slightly differently depending on what key you give it.
#18
Spod
I don't really see a problem with this approach. It should drive down the cost of the chips. Intel can make a single generic chip and then just turn on the features that you pay for. That could be extra cache, faster clock or even additional cores.


They already do that, they have for years, sans the part where you pay to enable features. I don't see how it will drive down the cost at all.

Edited By: jah128 on Sep 21, 2010 17:22: trimmed
banned#19
Remember seeing something for one of my old AMD processors where you could solder something or other on the chip to make it the same as a much more expensive processor.
#20
jah128
[quote=Spod]They already do that, they have for years, sans the part where you pay to enable features. I don't see how it will drive down the cost at all.


Because it's cheaper to make a lot of generic chips than making specific ones with different features. It could well drive down costs for Intel. Whether or not that gets passed on to the consumer is another matter entirely ... :-)
#21
lumoruk
Remember seeing something for one of my old AMD processors where you could solder something or other on the chip to make it the same as a much more expensive processor.
it wasnt just a better cooling system was it, then they properly over clocked it?
#22
Spod
jah128
[quote=Spod]They already do that, they have for years, sans the part where you pay to enable features. I don't see how it will drive down the cost at all.
Because it's cheaper to make a lot of generic chips than making specific ones with different features. It could well drive down costs for Intel. Whether or not that gets passed on to the consumer is another matter entirely ... :-)

jah128's point is that they do this already - when Intel produce a batch of processors, they all start off the same. Then when they've finishing producing the processor, they start testing each one to see what it's capable of and what parts are broken. The best processors in the batch will be those that can reach the highest clock speeds at stock voltage and fully functional. They then work their way down speed binning the processors, each processor is rated for a certain speed and that's what it will be sold as. Then there's the broken processors, some will damaged portions of cache or a damaged core however as the rest of the processor may be fine it makes no sense to bin it. So Intel disable the faulty parts and sell it as a budget model which is where Celerons come from, they are standard processors with failed cache on them.

The difficulty as jah128 also mentioned is that if you have good yields potentially you could produce a batch of processors that has a very high number of fully functional processors capable of the top speeds. You can't only sell them all as top end processors as this would mean most people couldn't afford the more niche high end processors but you can't just drop the price of them all either as that devalues the model and will cause problems if the next batch is poorer as the price would have to shoot up. So what they do is still divide up the batch as they would do normally to produce the numbers of each speed rating and model but in reality it could be the slowest processor in the range is identical to the top speed one but clocked lower. If you then overclock the processor it's possible to get the same performance as the topend one or more, Intel's Pentium 2.4C was well known for its impressive overclocking ability - despite being the cheapest model it could be easily overclocked to the same as the top model and quite a bit beyond.

The same also happens with caches and extra cores, some processors will have portions of their caches and/or cores disabled even though the processor is fully functional as they need to have budget processors to sell. In some cases as mentioned above it's actually been possible to re-enable damaged cache or cores but it's always a gamble as you don't know what you're buying, some of these budget processors will have genuinely damage cores and/or caches where others won't.

What Intel are doing is trying to squeeze some money out of cheap processors where they basically have to sell a functional processor as a cheaper one, previously the processor would be forever limited but now they may be able to get some money from people 'upgrading' by paying for the code. From what I've seen of the costs, it's pretty failsafe for Intel because the upgrade cost using the serial number is very high - if the system is broken, it's not much of a bargain as you can get a better processor than the unlocked one for only slightly more than the initial cost. If people never use it then Intel lose pretty much nothing as they've sold locked processors like this before with no unlock available and for the few that do pay for the upgrade, Intel will get a reasonable amount of money as the upgrade cost is higher than buying the better processor at the start or buying a better one further down the line.

Edited By: Johnmcl7 on Sep 21, 2010 18:30: .
banned#23
whatsThePoint


Wasn't that where you solder an intel chip onto it?

Ha ha no. It unlocked the multiplier and voltage.
#24
PhearFactor
I heard rumours Intel were planning to stop all future over-clocking on their new processors due to what has been happening recently. All I can say now is.. AMD Fanboy in the house!

Unsurprisingly this is not true - Intel will release their processors in three different groups, the first is for enthusiasts and will have completely unlocked multipliers, the second group will have partially unlocked multipliers and the final budget group of processors will be locked entirely. The first group which will have a 'K' suffix are apparently going to be priced at a similar level to the previous equivalent processors rather than the hefty premium the Extreme edition processors add.

Plus the processors can overlock themselves depending on their current load and thermal limits giving people the extra performance without having to worry about any settings nor extra power consumption.

John
#25
Nicely put john...
#26
This doesnt sound like a good idea if you ask me.

Things like this always cause a stir and certain groups of people who love to crack and hack things will always find a way around it, especially when large corporations are involved. Look at all the people who hate microsoft and no matter what they do they will never stop people hacking their software. Microsoft try but they always fail.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!