Intel Releases 3 "Upgrade Cards" for Sandy Bridge

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]mlopinto2k1[/nom]Not trying to be a jerk, but... what about prepaid cellular phone cards?[/citation]

You get what you paid for without having to be stuck with a 2 year contract with a monopolistic corporate satan like at&t.
 
AMD does it for a reason for e.g. The fourth core on triple cores is not up to the mark or just plain non-functioning(Evident from the fact that everyone was not able to unlock the fourth core and keep it stable). Intel is doing it just to have a new product up its sleeves. This means that Intel is sure this upgrade will work on every mentioned processor. AMD couldn't have said that.
 
Sir, yes, I know if you buy this upgrade car you might get anti-lock breaks and 20 more horse power, I really don't know what it will do to the car to be honest, but go for it.
 
[citation][nom]elitemarksman[/nom]You do realize that the lower end processors are just high end processors with certain features disabled? AMD does not make ANY triple core processors, they are quads with one core disabled...Pretty much every modern intel has the architecture to support hyperthreading, it's just disabled on certain models by the firmware.[/citation]

While you are correct in asserting that most low-end processors (by BOTH AMD and Intel) have their capabilities artificially disabled there can be reasons that they do so. Take the AMD Phenom II X3 for example. AMD initially decided to release these chips as a result of one of the cores on the Phenom II X4 being defective. This is just a flaw in the manufacturing process and allows them to sell them at a lower price point. However, the when the market for the X3 expands and exceeds the number of faulty processors then some of the X4s are artificially limited to 3 cores. This is why some people are able to unlock a 4th core on the X3 and some are not. I have no problem with this process as it is simply making use of an otherwise defective processor.

However, what it sounds like Intel is doing is artificially limiting every single processor and not because of the aforementioned binning process. I see this as a grossly unfair method to raise their profit margins. They should just sell the chips without the artificial limitations without increasing the price.

 
As long as you're getting what you paid for I don't see a problem. Complaining about this is like complaining you can't sit in unsold business/first class seats if you have a coach ticket.
 
[citation][nom]mlopinto2k1[/nom]Ohhh, yes.. thumb these all down. It'll be like FOX news up in here. Drama sells.[/citation]
Then don't go and insult everybody who you disagree with. That's the job of FOX news.
 
[citation][nom]Kattahn[/nom]I may be wrong, but I thought the AMD tri-cores were made from defective AMD quads, and that enabling the 4th core could cause problems?In the past, the lower end chips were just that, the lower quality products that came off the line(not all silicone is created equal...). Now it seems like intel is taking perfectly good products and crippling them to sell them to you for cheap.Again, this might not be exactly how it works, but thats the way ive always perceived it.[/citation]
Yes and no... AMD disables cores to create the dual and triple core processors. In some cases, the disabled cores are completely defective. In some cases, the cores are only defective under certain workloads. There are also cases, as soccerdocks stated, where perfectly functioning quad core processors have cores disabled to meet market demand.

[citation][nom]Tkozy[/nom]I haven't owned an OEM computer for a while, but these folks can't go into the bios and overclock it themselves? The vast majority of users might not have the technical knowledge to do so, but it seems that someone who knows about the upgrade cards might know enough to google overclocking.Also, isn't this prone to piracy? Can't someone crack intel's software or write their own firmware for a free unlock?[/citation]

Most OEM computers can't be overclocked....

And yes, it is possible to "crack" Intel's system...as is the case with anything involving computers.
 
If the baseline, pre-upgraded processor's price is reasonable, e.g. similar or better than comparable AMD's product in terms of price/performance ratio, then I don't find a problem with it. It's an option for mobile platform which you can't unplug and plug in a new CPU anyway. For desktop it's less attractive. The determined factor is the price. If it's $50 across these CPUs for 10%~25% performance gains, it's not that good other than the mobile version. And don't OEM desktops have upgrade plan that you can use without voiding the warranty?
 
[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]As long as you're getting what you paid for I don't see a problem. Complaining about this is like complaining you can't sit in unsold business/first class seats if you have a coach ticket.[/citation]
No, as your analogy is more akin to "I wanna buy this cobalt, but, you should give me that Camero instead since you didn't sell it yet".

With AMD and Intel having the OC and unlocking ability, it's more about if your system as a whole can deal with it. Those settings on those chips are what EVERYONE can handle at all times. OC'ing is different then what we have here. It'd be similar to AMD selling a 6 core processor like the 1100T, and selling it to you as a 3 core and running at 2.4 GHZ for 75% the price. Then, you can spend another 50% of the original price to upgrade it to where it should be. Costing 125%. That's just BS. It comes down to marketing, and, overall, people's bankroll at particular times (usually), but, it's only MORALLY wrong. Business wise? It's smart. Funny how those two rarely go hand-in-hand.
 
[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]As long as you're getting what you paid for I don't see a problem. Complaining about this is like complaining you can't sit in unsold business/first class seats if you have a coach ticket.[/citation]

I respectfully disagree with your analogy. It definitely costs them more in terms of service and the ability to sell those seats, not to mention how many people would move up front or whine if someone got up front for free and they did not.

As far as this goes, its intentionally crippling a product and selling an upgrade back to its full capability for more than the cost of having chosen a much faster chip.

Sure not everyone has the money up front, but there are other things you can chose to buy the lower version of and upgrade later. The CPU is one of the more important parts of a system. Sure most enthusiasts know that, but not everyone else does. Is this kind of business towards those who don't know better justified somehow?

I guess it comes down to, "Is purposefully selling people a bad deal allowable?" Because many companies are based on giving people bad deals.
 
It baffles me how you nerds start bitching on internet forums about a strategy that is at the heart of every damn cpu and gpu for almost 2 decades. Some whiners cry that intel "artificially" disables cores or hyperthreading whereas AMD disables nonfunctional cores (I guess that must be organic instead of "artificial") salvaging what would otherwise be defective parts. You morons realise why intel disables good cores and AMD usually disables shitty cores? Because a bad intel chip is thrown away and called a failure, while a bad AMD chip is an opportunity to make more money off people stupid enough to buy their discounted garbage anyway. Yes, let's thumb down companies that throw away garbage, and have a little hippy tear roll down our cheeks every time AMD disables cores that don't pass QA and sells them.
 
This is really nothing new, back in the late 90's (96 I think) HP put out the Officejet 500 series. There were 3 "models" that had different capacity for speed dial, fax memory and etc. They were in fact all the exact same hardware, the difference was the CD that shipped with each model which enabled different features and capacities. Another example was the E-MU 1212 digital recording card that I bought several years ago. When I bought it the box still said it had a 96kHz sampling frequency but I knew that creative had released drivers that day which unlocked it to 192kHz. You should have seen to look on the face of the guy at guitar center that tried to up-sell me a 192 kHz mod (at $120.00):)
 
[citation][nom]joeman42_43[/nom]It baffles me how you nerds start bitching on internet forums about a strategy that is at the heart of every damn cpu and gpu for almost 2 decades. Some whiners cry that intel "artificially" disables cores or hyperthreading whereas AMD disables nonfunctional cores (I guess that must be organic instead of "artificial") salvaging what would otherwise be defective parts. You morons realise why intel disables good cores and AMD usually disables shitty cores? Because a bad intel chip is thrown away and called a failure, while a bad AMD chip is an opportunity to make more money off people stupid enough to buy their discounted garbage anyway. Yes, let's thumb down companies that throw away garbage, and have a little hippy tear roll down our cheeks every time AMD disables cores that don't pass QA and sells them.[/citation]


I don't think it really applies the same way. Companies bin their chips depending on testing capabilities and market demand. This is binning a processor lower to attempt to create a demand that people will pay more to un-bin it later. A larger price than paying upfront.

While a perfectly legal sales tactic, I think it a bad deal for the customer and thus kind of preying opon people.

You might not have the money for the bigscreen TV outright, but a rent to Own store can make you pay much more for the item you sign a deal for in the long run.
 
"It baffles me how you nerds start bitching on internet forums about a strategy that is at the heart of every damn cpu and gpu for almost 2 decades. "

isn't this the pot calling the kettle black
 
[citation][nom]Tkozy[/nom]Can't someone crack intel's software or write their own firmware for a free unlock?[/citation]

If someone is smart enough to do that they wouldn't bother.

THEY WOULD OVERCLOCK IT THEMSELVES. ("-_-)
 
[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]Yes and no... AMD disables cores to create the dual and triple core processors. In some cases, the disabled cores are completely defective. In some cases, the cores are only defective under certain workloads. There are also cases, as soccerdocks stated, where perfectly functioning quad core processors have cores disabled to meet market demand.[/citation]

I seem to remember reading something several months ago that said that AMD's fabbing process was now very reliable and that there were not that many defective chips, and that as a result most X2s/X3s were intentionally crippled but fully-functioning Phenoms.
 
[citation][nom]elitemarksman[/nom]AMD does not make ANY triple core processors, they are quads with one core disabled...Pretty much every modern intel has the architecture to support hyperthreading, it's just disabled on certain models by the firmware.[/citation]
Its not quite as simple. Sure, there are many perfectly working quad core AMD CPUs that just had a core disabled, but originally Intel had a lot of pentium CPUs with a defect or two in the cache area. By masking off/disabling the half of the cache affected, they turned the pentium into a celeron and were able to make money on what would otherwise have been a chip destined for the trash.
 
This is absolutely insane. I don't know what genius at Intel came up with it, but that tiny thought that I might go Intel on my next build exploded into pieces, AMD all the way. I'm not paying more for a hidden software update on a piece of hardware I already own. Raise your price when you sell it, and let me buy it all full capacity, or don't sell it at all.
 
Intel may be able to out class AMD in benchmarks, but its lack of class in its business practices is why AMD will always have a marketshare. As an avid overclocker, the notion of having to buy the stock performance is inconceivable. The X3 was a unique situation that prevented AMD from losing money on faulty chips, it helped them prevent losses and it helped the poor gamer community (notable exception for the X3-720, which was just a great chip). I am sure you can still overvolt these chips, but this is aimed at a market that is uncomfortable/ unaware of how to do this... its just too exploitative. Ignorance should be expensive, yet I still find this concept distasteful.

I hope this pushes more business to AMD, although this scheme is cleverly aimed at entry computing/ businesses... who just blithely buy whatever Best Buy/ Corporate Express has on hand. Even Intel doesn't have the audacity to try this in the gamer chip range.

Yay AMD!
 
Damnit. This is what happens when Intel doesn't have a real competitor, AMD needs to step it up a notch to really challenge Intel in terms of performance or they'll keep pulling crap like this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom