As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Intel wants you to pay to unlock your processor's true capabilities.

2

Posts

  • FyreWulffFyreWulff YouRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2010
    It makes sense to me. Slower processers in the same family are ones that the other cores/whatever didn't past QA testing so they sell them as a budget product so as to not dump tons of PCB into landfills.

    My guess is that they would have some sort of software that detects if the processor ends up having usable cores, and basically goes "well if you want to re-enable them, give us some money so we can afford covering it under our warranty if it goes bad after turning this on".

    Basically no-worry and no-fault overclocking.

    Much like how you can buy a new ECU through a dealer to raise your car's top speed and have it still covered under warranty, or do it yourself and take the risk on your own.

    I'm pretty sure it'd be physically possible to prevent people from doing this manually as they always have, this is basically 'we'll overclock it for you and have your back in case things go pear shaped'

    FyreWulff on
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    It makes sense to me. Slower processers in the same family are ones that the other cores/whatever didn't past QA testing so they sell them as a budget product so as to not dump tons of PCB into landfills.
    Well these "Pentium" chips are a pretty old architecture and as another poster pointed out, after a certain point you have much higher quality yields. So probably all of them are good.

    Azio on
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff YouRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2010
    It doesn't matter how long they've been around, there's still defective units. When you get that small, even a small error in the machine not syncing correctly or temp difference will make a core unusable.

    Intel would lose money if they software locked cores on all their procs and sell them for less than they are worth. The reason we have locked cores on current procs in the first place is because Intel/AMD basically settling for breaking even on that PCB.

    Which is why I'm guessing they would have software that would actually test to make sure there are extra usable cores in the first place.


    There's also the fact that I don't see a problem with packaging a chip as a 4 core processor and selling it you as a 4 core processor and all 4 verified-to-work cores are present. The only problem I'd have is if they said it was something like "4 core Ready" and only two worked without software unlocking. Which they won't do because that would lose them money and be market suicide.

    I don't see why people would be mad that, after buying the clearly marked product that gave them the cores it said it would, would have the ability to activate the extra cores while still remaining under warranty.

    FyreWulff on
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    Intel would lose money if they software locked cores on all their procs and sell them for less than they are worth. The reason we have locked cores on current procs in the first place is because Intel/AMD basically settling for breaking even on that PCB.

    Which is why I'm guessing they would have software that would actually test to make sure there are extra usable cores in the first place.

    This isn't how the CPU industry works. Intel has very good reasons to ensure a spread of products at various price ranges, regardless of how efficient their manufacturing process gets, to avoid cannibalizing their own high end sales. Intel isn't selling 'upgradeable' CPUs that may or may not be able to upgrade. If they're advertised as upgradeable, they're upgradeable. The CPU referenced in this thread is, I guarantee, a CPU with the upgradeable features disabled but fully functional.
    Which they won't do because that would lose them money and be market suicide.

    While the market backlash could potentially (but unlikely, I think) make it 'market suicide', they certainly wouldn't lose money on the proposition aside from through consumer backlash.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Azio wrote: »
    Besides, they only appear to be targeting chips sold with budget PCs, not retail chips, which is what every overclocker buys, so what is the big deal exactly.

    Why are you so sure that it'll stay there?

    Daedalus on
  • JHunzJHunz Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    Besides, they only appear to be targeting chips sold with budget PCs, not retail chips, which is what every overclocker buys, so what is the big deal exactly.

    Why are you so sure that it'll stay there?
    Because they know that tech-savvy users would crack their unlock software for free, whereas grandma would think that sounds like a really good deal?

    JHunz on
    bunny.gif Gamertag: JHunz. R.I.P. Mygamercard.net bunny.gif
  • ZeonZeon Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Azio wrote: »
    Falken wrote: »
    ...I, er, what? ...I never said it did?
    Sorry, I thought you were implying something but evidently you were not. I stand corrected. Yes overclocking these days is stupid easy, but still not something most people are going to be doing. And in any case I don't think this will affect your ability to overclock.
    Zeon wrote: »
    I disagree with this on the same principle i disagree with DLC that unlocks things already on a game disc. You bought a processor. Parts of it work but are disabled. You pay additional money to make full use of what you bought. That seems lame. I am not a fan.
    Is it really any worse than the previous arrangement? You buy a processor, parts of it "work" but are disabled, and you can never "make full use" of it. This is how market segmentation works in the desktop processor market. It has always worked this way.

    Oh and as for the whole DLC argument, you did not buy the materials on the disc, you bought a license to use those materials according to specific terms. You can't play World Of Warcraft without paying subscription fees just because you think you own the disc it was printed on. But I'm sure you've already heard that before.

    I can play WoW on private servers all i want because that aspect of an EULA has never been enforcable or held up in a court of law.

    This is more comparable to lets say... Buying a V8 car but the manufacturer filled 4 of the sparkplug holes with epoxy. Sure, the car starts, runs and drives passably, but it should be better. If i want to upgrade later i can drill those plugs out myself and risk my warranty, or i can pay the manufacturer to drill it out for me.

    Basically, instead of entry level processors being a happy little accident from the manufacturer (defects that are still ok to sell), theyre intentionally crippling product so as to prop up the value of their expensive line, while at the same time supporting a budget line that basically brings them free income throughout the lifespan of that line of processors, with no additional production. I mean, its a great business model, and if i owned shares or was on the board of directors of Intel, id be really happy to hear this. But as a consumer, i dislike the idea.

    I fully understand that during the initial runs of a new line of processors, the budget processors are absolutely necessary to subsidize the price of the expensive processors. But once you get to the point where the entire batch is good and youre having to intentionally cripple processors, doesnt the price point on the expensive processors seem somewhat artificial?

    Zeon on
    btworbanner.jpg
    Check out my band, click the banner.
  • Donovan PuppyfuckerDonovan Puppyfucker A dagger in the dark is worth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Zeon wrote: »
    I can play WoW on private servers all i want because that aspect of an EULA has never been enforcable or held up in a court of law.

    This is more comparable to lets say... Buying a V8 car but the manufacturer filled 4 of the sparkplug holes with epoxy. Sure, the car starts, runs and drives passably, but it should be better. If i want to upgrade later i can drill those plugs out myself and risk my warranty, or i can pay the manufacturer to drill it out for me.

    Basically, instead of entry level processors being a happy little accident from the manufacturer (defects that are still ok to sell), theyre intentionally crippling product so as to prop up the value of their expensive line, while at the same time supporting a budget line that basically brings them free income throughout the lifespan of that line of processors, with no additional production. I mean, its a great business model, and if i owned shares or was on the board of directors of Intel, id be really happy to hear this. But as a consumer, i dislike the idea.

    I fully understand that during the initial runs of a new line of processors, the budget processors are absolutely necessary to subsidize the price of the expensive processors. But once you get to the point where the entire batch is good and youre having to intentionally cripple processors, doesnt the price point on the expensive processors seem somewhat artificial?

    Hello and welcome to free-market capitalism.

    Donovan Puppyfucker on
  • PapillonPapillon Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Zeon wrote: »
    But once you get to the point where the entire batch is good and youre having to intentionally cripple processors, doesnt the price point on the expensive processors seem somewhat artificial?

    Tiered pricing schemes and paying for unlocks is the same as paying for software; you're paying for the R&D done on the product.

    Papillon on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Azio wrote: »
    The binning process remains effectively unchanged. They're just offering people who don't know any better the option to "upgrade" their crippled budget processors for additional profit.

    It's not about not knowing any better. If this gets extended across other low and midrange lines, it offers another upgrade path even for relatively knowledgeable customers. As a theoretical example, I can't afford a quad-core when I build my computer; I'm on a budget, and dual-core is "good enough." Two years later, I decided I need a little more oomph. I can either buy a $150+ processor, try and sell my current one for whatever I can get...or I can just give Intel $50 to unlock the extra core(s) already on there.

    This is even more beneficial if they've moved on to a new socket; I'd much rather pay Intel a bit to up the performance (even if I wound up paying more, in total, than a "better" processor would have cost) that have to replace my mobo/RAM/etc.

    It's not for everybody, but you don't have to be some grandma that doesn't know shit to benefit from this. It all depends on how they price it and what kind of performance bumps they end up offering (I'm unimpressed by the current offering).

    FyreWulff wrote: »
    It doesn't matter how long they've been around, there's still defective units. When you get that small, even a small error in the machine not syncing correctly or temp difference will make a core unusable.

    Intel would lose money if they software locked cores on all their procs and sell them for less than they are worth. The reason we have locked cores on current procs in the first place is because Intel/AMD basically settling for breaking even on that PCB.

    This is untrue. Early in a product cycle, defective chips are binned at lower specs. Late in the product cycle, often most of the chips are fully usable at the higher specs; but they need to maintain the lower-spec line in order to maintain the value of the higher-spec line. They actually make more money by intentionally downgrading chips. Yes, really.
    Which is why I'm guessing they would have software that would actually test to make sure there are extra usable cores in the first place.

    The software doesn't test. It just unlocks. These things are intentionally manufactured at the higher spec, then intentionally downgraded with additional registers and such (as well as access to those registers) present to support upgrading.

    They do this because at a certain point it costs them the exact same to manufacture a chip at double the clock speed and double the cache, but they need to maintain the price difference across the line...these chips actually come off the same...die? I'm not entirely familiar with the terminology.
    There's also the fact that I don't see a problem with packaging a chip as a 4 core processor and selling it you as a 4 core processor and all 4 verified-to-work cores are present. The only problem I'd have is if they said it was something like "4 core Ready" and only two worked without software unlocking. Which they won't do because that would lose them money and be market suicide.

    Which they do do, and have always done. The only difference now is instead of "hard" disabling cores, they're "soft" disabling them. More in a sec.
    I don't see why people would be mad that, after buying the clearly marked product that gave them the cores it said it would, would have the ability to activate the extra cores while still remaining under warranty.

    Me neither. The only difference here is transparency; Intel (and AMD, and others) has always disabled features to create lower-spec parts by the end of a product line. The only difference here is they're pulling back the curtain, and the wizard will let you buy those features back.



    Want a quick history lesson? Look up the 486SX/DX. The DX had a math coprocessor. The SX did not. The SX, at first, was just a DX with a defective coprocessor. But demand for the SX (at the lower price point) was higher than the DX (and eventually the manufacturing was more reliable)...so eventually Intel was taking DX's and using a laser or some such to basically "cut" the line to the coprocessor, creating SX's. Since, you know, both chips came off the exact same line.

    I believe eventually they starteding making SX's on a different die, because they found a way to save money by doing so. But they'd have kept cutting off coprocessors until the end of time otherwise.

    They still do this today. By a certain point in, say, the Wolfdale's lifecycle, nearly every one is capable of operating at the highest spec in the line. They just lock the clocks on some higher or lower than others to artificially differentiate them. Or, as mentioned, at least some portion fo the Pentium line are just Core 2's with cache disabled to fill the bins and meet demand.

    EDIT: Oh, and IIRC when they sold separate math coprocessors for the 486, they were actually just 486DX's with the regular CPU disabled. It really was cheaper for them to just manufacture one part and enable/disable features at will based on what they wanted to sell it is.

    mcdermott on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Papillon wrote: »
    Zeon wrote: »
    But once you get to the point where the entire batch is good and youre having to intentionally cripple processors, doesnt the price point on the expensive processors seem somewhat artificial?

    Tiered pricing schemes and paying for unlocks is the same as paying for software; you're paying for the R&D done on the product.

    Yes. The problem is that (making up some numbers) in order to make a profit Intel would need to sell all the processors in a line at $400. But that's fuckspensive for 90% of the market. But they can still gain a margin over manufacturing costs at, say, $150. So they price 80% of their processors at $150, but downspeed them. Then sell 10% at $250, 5% at $350, and 5% at $450. They make the same amount they'd have made selling an equilibrium number (based on supply/demand) at $400...but more people get computers.

    It's essentially redistribution of wealth from people with more money for computers to people with less; people willing to spend $500+ on the hottest new processor subsidize the computers of those who buy the $300 Dell special of the week (which has a $40 processor).

    Obviously this is all a little simplified. But the redistribution angle is exactly what's happening. And it's the fairest possible way to do it; every single customer gets to decide how much performance they're willing to pay for; what the chip is capable of is irrelevant.

    mcdermott on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Zeon wrote: »
    I disagree with this on the same principle i disagree with DLC that unlocks things already on a game disc. You bought a processor. Parts of it work but are disabled. You pay additional money to make full use of what you bought. That seems lame. I am not a fan.

    I'll say the same thing again here...this is apparently okay to you, minus the bolded. Odds are you've already paid for a processor with working features disabled at some point, but didn't know it and didn't have the ability to unlock those features. The DLC was always on the disc, but they weren't even willing to sell it to you before.
    Zeon wrote: »
    I can play WoW on private servers all i want because that aspect of an EULA has never been enforcable or held up in a court of law.

    On a side note, didn't I just read about a judgment of $texas against somebody running a private server for WoW the other day? Because a court upheld that aspect of the EULA?

    You might want to look into that. I don't think they're going after players, but I'm pretty sure that in the U.S. at least that bit is absolutely enforceable.

    I fully understand that during the initial runs of a new line of processors, the budget processors are absolutely necessary to subsidize the price of the expensive processors. But once you get to the point where the entire batch is good and youre having to intentionally cripple processors, doesnt the price point on the expensive processors seem somewhat artificial?

    Hello and welcome to free-market capitalism.

    Pretty much. Really, there's no reason at all that price need be tied to cost in any but a perfect market (and the CPU market certainly has barriers to entry). If people are willing to pay it, they can charge it. But, in this case, you also have the issue that manufacturing cost is not necessarily the driving issue on CPU prices; R&D is...obviously they're making a tidy profit as well, but you can't say "oh, it only costs them $8 to press a $100 chip." It cost them a gazillion dollars to make the first one.

    mcdermott on
  • Donovan PuppyfuckerDonovan Puppyfucker A dagger in the dark is worth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Pretty much. Really, there's no reason at all that price need be tied to cost in any but a perfect market (and the CPU market certainly has barriers to entry). If people are willing to pay it, they can charge it. But, in this case, you also have the issue that manufacturing cost is not necessarily the driving issue on CPU prices; R&D is...obviously they're making a tidy profit as well, but you can't say "oh, it only costs them $8 to press a $100 chip." It cost them a gazillion dollars to make the first one.

    This is true for pretty much every technology ever.

    Those electronic fuel injectors in your car that cost $40 each to replace? Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent researching and developing them. When they were first made available to manufacturers and the public, they cost a shitload per unit, and so were only fitted to top of the line luxury/sports cars. Now they're so cheap it won't be long until chainsaws, lawn mowers and leaf blowers are fuel injected...

    Donovan Puppyfucker on
  • SmokeStacksSmokeStacks Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    How is resale going to work?

    Meaning, does this software unlock flip a switch within the CPU itself, so if it was removed from the mobo it was originally unlocked on it will still perform at it's full spec?

    Is the unlock purely software? Are you going to have to reinitialize it if you change hard drives or reformat?

    Is it going to be locked to the motherboard it originally ships with? Are you going to have to pay again if you swap mobos?

    SmokeStacks on
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Zeon wrote: »
    This is more comparable to lets say... Buying a V8 car but the manufacturer filled 4 of the sparkplug holes with epoxy. Sure, the car starts, runs and drives passably, but it should be better. If i want to upgrade later i can drill those plugs out myself and risk my warranty, or i can pay the manufacturer to drill it out for me.
    Oh boy a car analogy.

    If a Turbo Golf came with the exact same motor as a regular Golf, you might have a point. If all Golfs were the sports model, equally expensive to make, and this was only reasonable way to manufacture Golfs, they would have to somehow produce a lower-price model for people who can't afford 30 grand for a hatchback. That would mean taking off features so the people paying 30 grand don't feel like they're subsidizing everyone else.

    Only that's not how it works. Cars are assembled one at a time. They can be fitted with different motors. A defect in a particular car means the car cannot be sold. A microprocessor is not a car. They way microprocessors are made is, hundreds of identical microprocessors are stamped out on a metal disc, and are then tested for quality. The economics are totally different.

    Azio on
  • Monkey Ball WarriorMonkey Ball Warrior A collection of mediocre hats Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    They do this because at a certain point it costs them the exact same to manufacture a chip at double the clock speed and double the cache, but they need to maintain the price difference across the line...these chips actually come off the same...die? I'm not entirely familiar with the terminology.

    Individual dies are cut from wafers, which are themselves cut from a huge single crystal of pure silicon. The size of the wafer and die size (which is a product of process size (45nm) and transistor count (1 billion)) tells you how many potential chips can be made from a single wafer. Will you get a bunch of duds? Will you get more high quality chips than you can sell at the price you offer them at? Who knows?

    Monkey Ball Warrior on
    "I resent the entire notion of a body as an ante and then raise you a generalized dissatisfaction with physicality itself" -- Tycho
  • SmokeStacksSmokeStacks Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    They do this because at a certain point it costs them the exact same to manufacture a chip at double the clock speed and double the cache, but they need to maintain the price difference across the line...these chips actually come off the same...die? I'm not entirely familiar with the terminology.

    Individual dies are cut from wafers, which are themselves cut from a huge single crystal of pure silicon. The size of the wafer and die size (which is a product of process size (45nm) and transistor count (1 billion)) tells you how many potential chips can be made from a single wafer. Will you get a bunch of duds? Will you get more high quality chips than you can sell at the price you offer them at? Who knows?

    It's actually a tube of manufactured silicon that is sliced into wafers.

    You get a ton of duds.

    These can be mechanical or structural defects, or they can be caused by pollution during the fabrication process. Most fabs aim for a Class 1 clean room environment (meaning no more than one particulate one half of a micrometer or larger per cubic meter of air), but even so you see a surprisingly large amount of wafers that have to be scrubbed and potentially reworked due to being "dirty".

    That, and your average large-scale fabrication plant is pretty big - imagine a building six stories tall, and each floor is slightly larger than a football field. And it's filled with tools the size of cars that can cost millions of dollars a piece. And that's manufacturing only, not including office space. Those plants are extremely expensive to build, maintain, and keep current. That, and for a standard sized plant you're looking at a power bill of around 1.2 million dollars a month. All of this isn't even touching R&D costs.

    Upon really giving it some thought, I've abandoned my knee-jerk "this is bullshit" reaction and have realized that this isn't something that particularly bothers me. Company has to make money, this seems like a decent way to do it that isn't really screwing anyone (yet) when you stop and think about it.

    I only have experience building semiconductors that eventually became various forms of memory, as opposed to processors, but my understanding is that the process is fairly similar.

    SmokeStacks on
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    The binning process remains effectively unchanged. They're just offering people who don't know any better the option to "upgrade" their crippled budget processors for additional profit.

    It's not about not knowing any better. If this gets extended across other low and midrange lines, it offers another upgrade path even for relatively knowledgeable customers. As a theoretical example, I can't afford a quad-core when I build my computer; I'm on a budget, and dual-core is "good enough." Two years later, I decided I need a little more oomph. I can either buy a $150+ processor, try and sell my current one for whatever I can get...or I can just give Intel $50 to unlock the extra core(s) already on there.

    This is even more beneficial if they've moved on to a new socket; I'd much rather pay Intel a bit to up the performance (even if I wound up paying more, in total, than a "better" processor would have cost) that have to replace my mobo/RAM/etc.

    Except they could have just as easily sold you a quad core processor for your original budget, as clearly they were making sufficient profit off of it.

    But hey, I'm sure that the one single other company that's licensed to create processors using the x86 instruction set will totally keep Intel in line. They'd never think to collude to fix prices or anything like that; it's all good.

    Daedalus on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Daedalus wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    The binning process remains effectively unchanged. They're just offering people who don't know any better the option to "upgrade" their crippled budget processors for additional profit.

    It's not about not knowing any better. If this gets extended across other low and midrange lines, it offers another upgrade path even for relatively knowledgeable customers. As a theoretical example, I can't afford a quad-core when I build my computer; I'm on a budget, and dual-core is "good enough." Two years later, I decided I need a little more oomph. I can either buy a $150+ processor, try and sell my current one for whatever I can get...or I can just give Intel $50 to unlock the extra core(s) already on there.

    This is even more beneficial if they've moved on to a new socket; I'd much rather pay Intel a bit to up the performance (even if I wound up paying more, in total, than a "better" processor would have cost) that have to replace my mobo/RAM/etc.

    Except they could have just as easily sold you a quad core processor for your original budget, as clearly they were making sufficient profit off of it.

    No, they were making sufficient profit by selling my processor at the price they sold it to me at, and by charging significantly more for a quad core.
    But hey, I'm sure that the one single other company that's licensed to create processors using the x86 instruction set will totally keep Intel in line. They'd never think to collude to fix prices or anything like that; it's all good.

    Good point that there's not really a huge amount of competition in the market, but considering that one of these two has actually sued the other for anticompetitive practices I'm not sure "collusion" is something that's been an issue.

    mcdermott on
  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2010
    Daedalus wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    The binning process remains effectively unchanged. They're just offering people who don't know any better the option to "upgrade" their crippled budget processors for additional profit.

    It's not about not knowing any better. If this gets extended across other low and midrange lines, it offers another upgrade path even for relatively knowledgeable customers. As a theoretical example, I can't afford a quad-core when I build my computer; I'm on a budget, and dual-core is "good enough." Two years later, I decided I need a little more oomph. I can either buy a $150+ processor, try and sell my current one for whatever I can get...or I can just give Intel $50 to unlock the extra core(s) already on there.

    This is even more beneficial if they've moved on to a new socket; I'd much rather pay Intel a bit to up the performance (even if I wound up paying more, in total, than a "better" processor would have cost) that have to replace my mobo/RAM/etc.

    Except they could have just as easily sold you a quad core processor for your original budget, as clearly they were making sufficient profit off of it.

    But hey, I'm sure that the one single other company that's licensed to create processors using the x86 instruction set will totally keep Intel in line. They'd never think to collude to fix prices or anything like that; it's all good.

    So what you're asking for, is for Intel to manufacture another entire line of physically different chips at intentionally lower specs, just so when they charge you $150 for the chip instead of $400, there aren't any locked out features, correct?

    Except doing exactly that will raise costs significantly, and in order to turn a profit on your non-locked-lower-spec chip, they'll now need to charge you $250-300 per chip. So congratulations, you're now paying a 100% price increase as a matter of principle.

    Or are you just pissed off that the market will pay $400 for the fully unlocked chip, so they're selling it at that cost? If that's the case, I hear some countries are trying out this new thing called Communism. I hear it's pretty awesome.

    Bionic Monkey on
    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • SmokeStacksSmokeStacks Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I hear some countries are trying out this new thing called Communism. I hear it's pretty awesome.
    Greetings Comrade!

    As you are riveter in tractor factory we have found that your request for quad core system with four gigabyte of RAMs and Gee-Force GPU to be unwarrant. Only thing you need computer for for to check work timetables for to see when you must report to tractor factory. Does not take powerful computer to check work schedules.

    Resulting in Glorious Parliamentary decision to assign you new computer -

    486SX 33Mhz (salvaged from targeting system of decommissioned SCUD Missile)
    4MB RAM
    100MB of Hard Drives (included Kamchatka Viewscreens 3.1 and Glorious Tetris)

    We know you are pleased with new computer. Will delivered on or before or on next Tuesday with shipment of new Rivets for Tractor Factory.

    Regards,
    Boris Yetskenvka,
    Manager Operations

    ---
    Sent from my iPhone 3G

    SmokeStacks on
  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2010
    Glorious.

    Bionic Monkey on
    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff YouRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2010
    Includes DOSvedanya system for The People's Backwards Compatibility

    FyreWulff on
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    mjuw6h.jpg

    Better luck next time, slughead...

    Azio on
  • AyulinAyulin Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    Includes DOSvedanya system for The People's Backwards Compatibility

    This was very nicely played. :lol:

    Ayulin on
    steam_sig.png
  • FalkenFalken Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Capatist lies. The people's Computer of choice is the коммодор-приятель!

    AGA Chipsets (2MB of video rams, four channels of soviet sound)
    68030 25Mhz буран card with 8MB, for glorious speeds
    85MB hardings disks with коммодор-приятель 3.0 in roms.

    Not to listening to yankee pig dogs.

    Falken on
  • ZeonZeon Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Zeon wrote: »
    I can play WoW on private servers all i want because that aspect of an EULA has never been enforcable or held up in a court of law.

    This is more comparable to lets say... Buying a V8 car but the manufacturer filled 4 of the sparkplug holes with epoxy. Sure, the car starts, runs and drives passably, but it should be better. If i want to upgrade later i can drill those plugs out myself and risk my warranty, or i can pay the manufacturer to drill it out for me.

    Basically, instead of entry level processors being a happy little accident from the manufacturer (defects that are still ok to sell), theyre intentionally crippling product so as to prop up the value of their expensive line, while at the same time supporting a budget line that basically brings them free income throughout the lifespan of that line of processors, with no additional production. I mean, its a great business model, and if i owned shares or was on the board of directors of Intel, id be really happy to hear this. But as a consumer, i dislike the idea.

    I fully understand that during the initial runs of a new line of processors, the budget processors are absolutely necessary to subsidize the price of the expensive processors. But once you get to the point where the entire batch is good and youre having to intentionally cripple processors, doesnt the price point on the expensive processors seem somewhat artificial?

    Hello and welcome to free-market capitalism.

    Yeah and no where did i say this is a bad idea. I actually even said from the point of view of someone with interest in the company, its a great idea. I just said i dont like it.

    Zeon on
    btworbanner.jpg
    Check out my band, click the banner.
  • GihgehlsGihgehls Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    This sounds a lot like Photoshop licensing where depending on which serial you enter you get different features in the product. It doesn't make sense for adobe to manufacture lots of different discs when they can just do this.

    Gihgehls on
    PA-gihgehls-sig.jpg
  • SatsumomoSatsumomo Rated PG! Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    So finally, people will be able to actually download more Megahertz for their computer.

    Satsumomo on
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Satsumomo wrote: »
    So finally, people will be able to actually download more Megahertz for their computer.

    Great, now I just imagined malware that turns this switch back on. :P

    Phoenix-D on
  • b0bd0db0bd0d Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    You increase horsepower by decreasing the amount of fuel injected and leaning out the mixture.

    Wait, I'm confused. How does leaning a mixture increase horsepower? Or is that only for a forced induction engine?

    b0bd0d on
  • Donovan PuppyfuckerDonovan Puppyfucker A dagger in the dark is worth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    b0bd0d wrote: »
    You increase horsepower by decreasing the amount of fuel injected and leaning out the mixture.

    Wait, I'm confused. How does leaning a mixture increase horsepower? Or is that only for a forced induction engine?

    Nope. This is fundamentally wrong. Leaning mixtures sharply increases cylinder temperatures, which encourages pre-ignition and detonation, which will destroy your pistons/rotors.

    Donovan Puppyfucker on
  • FalkenFalken Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    ... And then we switch to a higher octane and oh look car thread.

    Falken on
  • amnesiasoftamnesiasoft Thick Creamy Furry Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I'm not getting this car stuff, could you explain it in the form of a car analogy?

    amnesiasoft on
    steam_sig.png
  • GihgehlsGihgehls Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Well, imagine that your car had a Pentium instead of an engine...

    Gihgehls on
    PA-gihgehls-sig.jpg
  • Donovan PuppyfuckerDonovan Puppyfucker A dagger in the dark is worth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Falken wrote: »
    ... And then we switch to a higher octane and oh look car thread.

    You could be running methanol which is the equivalent of, oh, let's say about 120 octane, and if you lean the mixtures out too much (fun fact, methanol is stoichiometric at 6.42:1, at least twice as rich as gasoline which burns perfectly at 14.7:1), you'll still pre-ignite and burn holes through your nice expensive hypereutectic pistons.

    Donovan Puppyfucker on
  • GnomeTankGnomeTank What the what? Portland, OregonRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Not really feeling the outrage, but that's probably because I've understood for over a decade how binning works, and this is just pulling back the curtain (to use an metaphor someone else used earlier).

    For someone who buys mid-high to high-end pieces anyway, this doesn't effect me at all.

    (Also, car analogies are fucking terrible, because cars and microprocessors are not made in even remotely comparable ways).

    GnomeTank on
    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, NintendoID: Brainling, FF14: Zillius Rosh SFV: Brainling
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Yep. I think it'll even be of benefit for low-end CPU buyers. Pretty sure we'll see plenty of enthusiast boards that can turn on these features.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • FalkenFalken Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Falken wrote: »
    ... And then we switch to a higher octane and oh look car thread.

    You could be running methanol which is the equivalent of, oh, let's say about 120 octane, and if you lean the mixtures out too much (fun fact, methanol is stoichiometric at 6.42:1, at least twice as rich as gasoline which burns perfectly at 14.7:1), you'll still pre-ignite and burn holes through your nice expensive hypereutectic pistons.

    I think everyone here understands that there's a limit. Nobodies saying "lol lean out to 0:1 infinity mpg".

    Falken on
  • FatsFats Corvallis, ORRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I prefer diesel processors.

    Fats on
Sign In or Register to comment.