5 ms·

Intel's Pay-as-You-Go CPU Feature Gets Launch Window

20 points by ahiknsr 5y ago

matheusmoreira 5y ago
Great. Now people will have to pay to unlock hardware capabilities that already exist in the chip. I remember reading about this idea in some comedy site literally decades ago. Who would have thought that it'd become reality?
- salamandersauce 5y ago
  Its not the first time Intel tried this. They did it in 2010 and 2011 with the Intel Upgrade Service except it focused on low-end consumer hardware instead of high-end server/workstation gear. I hope it fails here too.
  - jamesliudotcc 5y ago
    I don't see why this is so bad. Already Intel makes 2-core chips by deactivating 2 of the cores in 4-core chips. Adding the ability to turn them on later is a good thing. Why pay for the whole thing up front? Ok, you can finance the better chip instead. But why pay a bank instead of Intel for the consumption later?
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      > Already Intel makes 2-core chips by deactivating 2 of the cores in 4-core chips. Those deactivated cores are defective. Turning them off and selling a downgraded version makes sense. This is the complete opposite. The chip works fine, it's just refusing to let you use what you want because you haven't paid Intel enough. Intel isn't really selling you a processor, they're allowing you to use one.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- Crosseye_Jack 5y ago
  This happen in other markets just fine. One market that jumps to mind is oscilloscopes, you will basically have a single piece of hardware spanning multiple skus where features are disabled via software/hardware (sometimes the CPU is just reading resistor values or jumpers to determine which model it is and therefore which features it has enabled), one notable vendor jumps to mind is Hantek. You can take a 70Mhz scope and opening it up to unlock it to 250mhz. (The same can be done in a number of Rigol scopes iirc) (EDIT: Note, obv you are still limited by the hardware of the scope, you are prob not going to be able to take a 70Mhz scope and unlock it into a 1Ghz scope - my point is that you will have a product range of X to Z and more often than not in that range the hardware inside that product is the same but with some features disabled/crippled depending on the price point that model is sold at) The idea is pretty simple, you keep costs lower because you are decreasing the number of PCBs you are designing and manufacturing, you are not buying x of one IC and Y of another ic, You get to release budget friendly models with less features, the higher cost models with more features help offset the R&D cost of those features and you have a upgrade path for the budget friendly models to self upgrade with a license upgrade (or a little tinkering under the hood if you are so inclinced - who would of thought people in need of scopes would tinker with said scopes ;-).) My other theory as to why these simple unlock hacks are kept in these products is that instead of closing the "hacks" you leave them in, your EE customers that want gear at home will buy these lower end models, tinker with them to get the higher end features, and when it comes time for the company hiring the EE for company related projects will take on board the EE's preference for the brand they like and are used to using, but will just pay for the features as a) they don't want to waste their EE's time tinkering with gear B) don't want anyone from licensing come knocking on the door). I was under the impression that most Intel chips (at least in the consumer space) in a series were pretty much the same silicon anyway just with features crippled because of price points, chips being binned as lower quality, etc. So why not make a chip that has the kitchen sink thrown in, that can have features enabled if required by the customer after purchase? In todays chips the features are pretty much there already just crippled at the silicon level. As long as the business practices don’t change and turn into a CPU as a Subscription model (or they just Jack their prices up of the base CPU and then expect you to pay even more for the features you need) I don’t see it being the end of the world, just giving users the ability to unlock functionality they didn’t foresee as a need at time of purchase. But maybe I’m giving them more benefit of the doubt then they deserve. I guess time will tell on this one. Edit number the second: As it says in the article > virtually none of Intel's customers need all the supported features, which is why Intel has to offer specialized models. There are 57 SKUs in the Xeon Scalable 3rd-Gen lineup, for example. But from a silicon point of view, all of Intel's Xeon Scalable CPUs are essentially the same in terms of the number of cores and clocks/TDP, with various functionalities merely disabled to create different models. The locks already exist, they are "just" moving the locks to a place the customer can unlock them as required. Or atleast I hope that is all they are doing.
- hulitu 5y ago
  Hopefuly they will also work after you pay for them. Not like my work laptop which goes in thermal throttling when a core is fully utilised leaving the othe cores idle and Win 10 unusable.
- donkeyd 5y ago
  This has already been the case, as the article specifies. However, they did this through providing different SKUs with specific feature sets enabled. Hardware was already identical between SKUs.
rowanG077 5y ago
Full speed ahead, next stop dystopia.
NoPicklez 5y ago
The only and I think the ONLY benefit from this, is what we will absolutely find ways to unlock these features ourselves for free.
threshold 5y ago
Another reason to buy AMD. Could they have timed this ‘feature’ any worse?
master_crab 5y ago
I wholeheartedly welcome this. Because I am absolutely sure someone in about three weeks will figure out how to turn on all of the features.
jevoten 5y ago
Improved market segmentation is never to the consumer's benefit.
- phendrenad2 5y ago
  Okay but literally anyone with a bank account can buy shares in Intel. How many do they have to buy to counteract the consumer disbenefit?
voakbasda 5y ago
This is a death knell for Intel. They have been floundering lately, and this move helped pushed me to make my new workstation use AMD. These kind of shenanigans are a complete turn off, because it shows a lack of respect for their customers. They could just give us all the cores, but instead they chose to spend a lot of engineering resources to artificially limit supply in order to profit from the demand. They may take a long time to fall, but I will avoid them from here on out unless they change their ways.
- mhh__ 5y ago
  > Death knell Intel's operating income is still roughly the size of AMD whole revenue, and they've just got their crown back on all but the highest end desktop class CPUs. Intel are very good at selling computer chips, this move sounds dumb (and it is), but the idea that the company is dying now (as opposed to 3 years ago) is quite silly IMO.
  - bcrl 5y ago
    This kind of product market segmentation is something that isn't done by technical people. The sales folks think they can extract more revenue from their products by doing this. Once technical decisions are being made by marketing, that's a clear sign that a tech company is in decline. It's no longer about what is best for the product, which means that Intel has lost the focus needed to create technically excellent products. It's definitely a sign of decline.

20 points by ahiknsr 5y ago

Great. Now people will have to pay to unlock hardware capabilities that already exist in the chip. I remember reading about this idea in some comedy site literally decades ago. Who would have thought that it'd become reality?

salamandersauce 5y ago
Its not the first time Intel tried this. They did it in 2010 and 2011 with the Intel Upgrade Service except it focused on low-end consumer hardware instead of high-end server/workstation gear. I hope it fails here too.
- jamesliudotcc 5y ago
  I don't see why this is so bad. Already Intel makes 2-core chips by deactivating 2 of the cores in 4-core chips. Adding the ability to turn them on later is a good thing. Why pay for the whole thing up front? Ok, you can finance the better chip instead. But why pay a bank instead of Intel for the consumption later?
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > Already Intel makes 2-core chips by deactivating 2 of the cores in 4-core chips. Those deactivated cores are defective. Turning them off and selling a downgraded version makes sense. This is the complete opposite. The chip works fine, it's just refusing to let you use what you want because you haven't paid Intel enough. Intel isn't really selling you a processor, they're allowing you to use one.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
Crosseye_Jack 5y ago
This happen in other markets just fine. One market that jumps to mind is oscilloscopes, you will basically have a single piece of hardware spanning multiple skus where features are disabled via software/hardware (sometimes the CPU is just reading resistor values or jumpers to determine which model it is and therefore which features it has enabled), one notable vendor jumps to mind is Hantek. You can take a 70Mhz scope and opening it up to unlock it to 250mhz. (The same can be done in a number of Rigol scopes iirc) (EDIT: Note, obv you are still limited by the hardware of the scope, you are prob not going to be able to take a 70Mhz scope and unlock it into a 1Ghz scope - my point is that you will have a product range of X to Z and more often than not in that range the hardware inside that product is the same but with some features disabled/crippled depending on the price point that model is sold at) The idea is pretty simple, you keep costs lower because you are decreasing the number of PCBs you are designing and manufacturing, you are not buying x of one IC and Y of another ic, You get to release budget friendly models with less features, the higher cost models with more features help offset the R&D cost of those features and you have a upgrade path for the budget friendly models to self upgrade with a license upgrade (or a little tinkering under the hood if you are so inclinced - who would of thought people in need of scopes would tinker with said scopes ;-).) My other theory as to why these simple unlock hacks are kept in these products is that instead of closing the "hacks" you leave them in, your EE customers that want gear at home will buy these lower end models, tinker with them to get the higher end features, and when it comes time for the company hiring the EE for company related projects will take on board the EE's preference for the brand they like and are used to using, but will just pay for the features as a) they don't want to waste their EE's time tinkering with gear B) don't want anyone from licensing come knocking on the door). I was under the impression that most Intel chips (at least in the consumer space) in a series were pretty much the same silicon anyway just with features crippled because of price points, chips being binned as lower quality, etc. So why not make a chip that has the kitchen sink thrown in, that can have features enabled if required by the customer after purchase? In todays chips the features are pretty much there already just crippled at the silicon level. As long as the business practices don’t change and turn into a CPU as a Subscription model (or they just Jack their prices up of the base CPU and then expect you to pay even more for the features you need) I don’t see it being the end of the world, just giving users the ability to unlock functionality they didn’t foresee as a need at time of purchase. But maybe I’m giving them more benefit of the doubt then they deserve. I guess time will tell on this one. Edit number the second: As it says in the article > virtually none of Intel's customers need all the supported features, which is why Intel has to offer specialized models. There are 57 SKUs in the Xeon Scalable 3rd-Gen lineup, for example. But from a silicon point of view, all of Intel's Xeon Scalable CPUs are essentially the same in terms of the number of cores and clocks/TDP, with various functionalities merely disabled to create different models. The locks already exist, they are "just" moving the locks to a place the customer can unlock them as required. Or atleast I hope that is all they are doing.
hulitu 5y ago
Hopefuly they will also work after you pay for them. Not like my work laptop which goes in thermal throttling when a core is fully utilised leaving the othe cores idle and Win 10 unusable.
donkeyd 5y ago
This has already been the case, as the article specifies. However, they did this through providing different SKUs with specific feature sets enabled. Hardware was already identical between SKUs.

rowanG077 5y ago

Full speed ahead, next stop dystopia.

NoPicklez 5y ago

The only and I think the ONLY benefit from this, is what we will absolutely find ways to unlock these features ourselves for free.

threshold 5y ago

Another reason to buy AMD. Could they have timed this ‘feature’ any worse?

master_crab 5y ago

I wholeheartedly welcome this. Because I am absolutely sure someone in about three weeks will figure out how to turn on all of the features.

jevoten 5y ago

Improved market segmentation is never to the consumer's benefit.

phendrenad2 5y ago
Okay but literally anyone with a bank account can buy shares in Intel. How many do they have to buy to counteract the consumer disbenefit?

voakbasda 5y ago

This is a death knell for Intel. They have been floundering lately, and this move helped pushed me to make my new workstation use AMD. These kind of shenanigans are a complete turn off, because it shows a lack of respect for their customers. They could just give us all the cores, but instead they chose to spend a lot of engineering resources to artificially limit supply in order to profit from the demand. They may take a long time to fall, but I will avoid them from here on out unless they change their ways.

mhh__ 5y ago
> Death knell Intel's operating income is still roughly the size of AMD whole revenue, and they've just got their crown back on all but the highest end desktop class CPUs. Intel are very good at selling computer chips, this move sounds dumb (and it is), but the idea that the company is dying now (as opposed to 3 years ago) is quite silly IMO.
- bcrl 5y ago
  This kind of product market segmentation is something that isn't done by technical people. The sales folks think they can extract more revenue from their products by doing this. Once technical decisions are being made by marketing, that's a clear sign that a tech company is in decline. It's no longer about what is best for the product, which means that Intel has lost the focus needed to create technically excellent products. It's definitely a sign of decline.