3 ms·
That actually makes sense, I think. Imagine how simpler and more cost effective it would be to make a single processor tiered at 4 levels via this method versus
by davvolun 13y ago
That actually makes sense, I think. Imagine how simpler and more cost effective it would be to make a single processor tiered at 4 levels via this method versus having the entire fabrication chain for four processors. If the prices are right, then I could buy the lowest tier, and a few years later pay the upgrade and get nearly a whole new processor. As long as the pricing is fair, and some cost savings are passed on to the consumer, this could be win-win, right?
- aangjie 13y agoWhile i agree in part with the idea of spreading R&D cost via locked functionality, i am not sure it's a good idea to legalize it without any regulatory body. And forming these bodies is no trivial matter, So overall am against this idea, simply because i don't want to trust Intel/<other Big Corp(that's close to monopoly)> to pass on meaningful cost savings to the consumer.
- Guvante 13y agoYour comment doesn't make sense, the locking functionality is perfectly legal and is actually a net-gain for the consumer (they now have the option to upgrade when otherwise they would have received a hardware locked chip).