3 ms·

> The only reason why we tolerate such clear signs of market failure is because in the larger picture, Intel et al Let's not forget our history here. I'm not a

> The only reason why we tolerate such clear signs of market failure is because in the larger picture, Intel et al Let's not forget our history here. I'm not a big fan of Intel but any techie will remember we successfully "tolerated" such practices decades ago when the Celeron 300A ran at double frequency, the Radeon X800 series got 50-100% more pixel shaders, or the Phenom X3s got 33% more cores for free. If anything customers were rejoicing. The market was always artificially segmented. The only reason we don't know today whether disabled blocks are good or not is that manufacturers have gotten better at keeping them disabled. You'd be hard pressed to tell me the actual real life difference for you between a $300 4-core CPU with 2 cores fused off, and a $300 4-core CPU with 2 cores licensed off. > Intel uses wasteful tactics Intel fashion dictates the user will see little benefit but differentiating SKUs in software is certainly less wasteful from the manufacturer's and OEM's perspective. The logistics alone might be worth it. Software manufacturers ship full installers with features disabled in licensing. Streaming services store all content but serve you a lower quality one based on your particular "license". Car manufacturers sell essentially the same engine with different power outputs. As I said, there are no bad products, just bad prices.

wtallis 5y ago
You seem to be ignoring that the hypothetical alternative would be a market with prices with downward flexibility, such that rather than gambling on unsupported hacks, you could instead get more cores for your money just by waiting for later in the product cycle. A 4-core chip with two fuzed off at $300 and a 4-core chip with two licensed off at $300 are definitely not equivalent options to be comparing, because in a market with no artificial product crippling Intel's price sheet would have to change. The fact that artificially crippling chips is not new does not mean it's a good thing. Having accepted a tradeoff doesn't erase its downsides.

wtallis 5y ago

You seem to be ignoring that the hypothetical alternative would be a market with prices with downward flexibility, such that rather than gambling on unsupported hacks, you could instead get more cores for your money just by waiting for later in the product cycle. A 4-core chip with two fuzed off at $300 and a 4-core chip with two licensed off at $300 are definitely not equivalent options to be comparing, because in a market with no artificial product crippling Intel's price sheet would have to change. The fact that artificially crippling chips is not new does not mean it's a good thing. Having accepted a tradeoff doesn't erase its downsides.