33 ms·

I have a thought… Maybe they could charge different prices for different products? I understand the binning concept but what I don’t agree with is turning off

I have a thought… Maybe they could charge different prices for different products? I understand the binning concept but what I don’t agree with is turning off working hardware with the only purpose being price. 6 out of 8 cores work — sell it as a 6 core chip. AVX-512 works just fine — don’t turn it off so you can sell it as a ‘subscription service’.

colejohnson66 4y ago
> ... what I don't agree with is turning off working hardware with the only purpose being price. Except, that already is what's happening. This changes nothing negatively. The issue Intel and AMD have is that it's too expensive to have multiple masks, so they end up only making one or two. This has the effect that, if a feature works, but they need more of the lower-tied SKUs, they fuse off the working parts. Your 4 core part might actually have 8 of the 12 cores work fine, but they were fused off to sell it cheaper. Whether you find that despicable or not doesn't change the fact that it already happens. The only thing this changes is that the hardware lockouts (fuses) are now "software" lockouts. You can now pay to access those working features you already had. Oscilloscope manufacturers have been doing this for years. Rather than stock 8+ different SKUs for a series, each with their own custom PCB, they stock two or three (based on supported channels). Then, everything is software locked. For example, Tektronix's new MSO4 series has bandwidth capability of 1.5 GHz in the hardware, but it'll cost you $27000 (for MSO44). They also have a 200 MHz model for $8420 (also MSO44). There's literally no hardware differences between the two; the bandwidth is entirely software limited. Afterwards, you can call and get a license key to unlock the higher bandwidth without buying a new scope.
- UncleEntity 4y ago
  > You can now pay to access those working features you already had. Judging by my interpretation of their website you can have access to these features on a time-based basis, like when you have a peak load on the database server or something. May be wrong because they seem to be intentionally vague but that’s a lot different than a software update to an oscilloscope (which is also kind of dodgy business practices).
Pet_Ant 4y ago
Sorry but what if I want a 4-core and your yields improve and you make 6-working cores? Should I have to pay more? There is no clean answer that doesn't suck for someone.
- UncleEntity 4y ago
  IDK, one would think they could sell the 6 core cheaper when the yield improves and encourage people to spend a couple bucks on a better product. The only difference is the silkscreen on the top of the chip. I seriously doubt they lose money on selling 6-core as a 4-core so this is just a price gouging exercise IMHO. I’m obviously not the target market for these types of shenanigans because I’ll just take my consumer dollars elsewhere instead of playing their silly games.

colejohnson66 4y ago

> ... what I don't agree with is turning off working hardware with the only purpose being price. Except, that already is what's happening. This changes nothing negatively. The issue Intel and AMD have is that it's too expensive to have multiple masks, so they end up only making one or two. This has the effect that, if a feature works, but they need more of the lower-tied SKUs, they fuse off the working parts. Your 4 core part might actually have 8 of the 12 cores work fine, but they were fused off to sell it cheaper. Whether you find that despicable or not doesn't change the fact that it already happens. The only thing this changes is that the hardware lockouts (fuses) are now "software" lockouts. You can now pay to access those working features you already had. Oscilloscope manufacturers have been doing this for years. Rather than stock 8+ different SKUs for a series, each with their own custom PCB, they stock two or three (based on supported channels). Then, everything is software locked. For example, Tektronix's new MSO4 series has bandwidth capability of 1.5 GHz in the hardware, but it'll cost you $27000 (for MSO44). They also have a 200 MHz model for $8420 (also MSO44). There's literally no hardware differences between the two; the bandwidth is entirely software limited. Afterwards, you can call and get a license key to unlock the higher bandwidth without buying a new scope.

UncleEntity 4y ago
> You can now pay to access those working features you already had. Judging by my interpretation of their website you can have access to these features on a time-based basis, like when you have a peak load on the database server or something. May be wrong because they seem to be intentionally vague but that’s a lot different than a software update to an oscilloscope (which is also kind of dodgy business practices).

Pet_Ant 4y ago

Sorry but what if I want a 4-core and your yields improve and you make 6-working cores? Should I have to pay more? There is no clean answer that doesn't suck for someone.

UncleEntity 4y ago
IDK, one would think they could sell the 6 core cheaper when the yield improves and encourage people to spend a couple bucks on a better product. The only difference is the silkscreen on the top of the chip. I seriously doubt they lose money on selling 6-core as a 4-core so this is just a price gouging exercise IMHO. I’m obviously not the target market for these types of shenanigans because I’ll just take my consumer dollars elsewhere instead of playing their silly games.