4 ms·

> Then more expensive versions just get more cores unlocked, higher frequency allowed, etc. That's called binning, the unit goes through some testing and compo

by lloeki 4y ago

> Then more expensive versions just get more cores unlocked, higher frequency allowed, etc. That's called binning, the unit goes through some testing and components that don't pass get shunted away (hardware or firmware) because they're known to behave incorrectly. Better that than throwing it into a trash. Blow the fuse/hack the firmware and you can unlock these because the hardware is there, but it's likely that it doesn't operate entirely correctly (especially under duress), even though it may appear to work at first blush.

pabs3 4y ago
Intel are working on CPUs where you enable features after paying a license fee: https://lwn.net/Articles/884876/ https://lwn.net/Articles/884876/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30394918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30394918
buran77 4y ago
Sometimes they will sell a perfectly functioning chip as a cut down version because they need to cater for that market segment. This market segmentation is nothing new and can be done in many ways, like permanently shaping the product before sale (HW) or using flexible licensing (SW). The problem with the "permanent" route is that when you sell such a cut down chip it usually stays cut down forever. So the only way to use the cut down features is to buy a chip that is fully unlocked. This is not only a waste of resources but also a waste of money to upgrade the entire chip. A solid mechanism to enable/disable these features on demand would make the situation a lot better. You could pay just for the upgrade instead of the whole chip, either permanently or only when you need it and pay per use. But the reality is that in practice this mechanism will probably not work to the advantage of the end user. It will focus entirely on the company's bottom line and open up new avenues for abuse. If your hardware is linked to a license and to the manufacturer forever, you'll never own it. Unless the legal framework enforces the rights of the consumer under threat of drastic fines for the manufacturer, we're just forgoing real ownership.
rapind 4y ago
I think maybe this is how it started out, but it would be really flakey to match with consumer demand. If everyone is buying the cheaper (binned) option you may not have the volume (or demand from the pricey option to just bin more).
- jffry 4y ago
  Price differences between SKUs are a tool manufacturers can adjust to try and shape demand to match their yield curves.

by lloeki 4y ago

pabs3 4y ago

Intel are working on CPUs where you enable features after paying a license fee: https://lwn.net/Articles/884876/ https://lwn.net/Articles/884876/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30394918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30394918

buran77 4y ago

Sometimes they will sell a perfectly functioning chip as a cut down version because they need to cater for that market segment. This market segmentation is nothing new and can be done in many ways, like permanently shaping the product before sale (HW) or using flexible licensing (SW). The problem with the "permanent" route is that when you sell such a cut down chip it usually stays cut down forever. So the only way to use the cut down features is to buy a chip that is fully unlocked. This is not only a waste of resources but also a waste of money to upgrade the entire chip. A solid mechanism to enable/disable these features on demand would make the situation a lot better. You could pay just for the upgrade instead of the whole chip, either permanently or only when you need it and pay per use. But the reality is that in practice this mechanism will probably not work to the advantage of the end user. It will focus entirely on the company's bottom line and open up new avenues for abuse. If your hardware is linked to a license and to the manufacturer forever, you'll never own it. Unless the legal framework enforces the rights of the consumer under threat of drastic fines for the manufacturer, we're just forgoing real ownership.

rapind 4y ago

I think maybe this is how it started out, but it would be really flakey to match with consumer demand. If everyone is buying the cheaper (binned) option you may not have the volume (or demand from the pricey option to just bin more).

jffry 4y ago
Price differences between SKUs are a tool manufacturers can adjust to try and shape demand to match their yield curves.