# Intel demands $50 for CPU unlock



## lotuseclat79 (Sep 12, 2003)

Intel demands $50 for CPU unlock.



> *Want to unlock those extra threads and cache cache on your new Pentium G6951 processor? Well, you'll just have to shell out an extra $50 to Intel for the privilege.
> 
> Of course, Intel's latest scheme is hardly an unprecedented move, as chip companies have long sold hardware-locked chips to customers under the auspices of "binning."
> 
> "But there they have a simpler excuse - binned chips are typically sold with cores or cache locked because that part of their silicon turned out defective after printing," explained Engadget's Sean Hollister.*


As long as in the chip you purchase, the chip itself was not defective, then Intel should not lock it up. However, if the chip itself was binned, then I can see that approach.

-- Tom


----------



## gberger (Jul 27, 2009)

Let's all chip in (no pun intended) and give them the 50.00


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

What a bad idea, spend $50 to "unlock" a chip instead of outright spending the $50 on a better CPU, or saving the $50 and doing it yourself.


----------



## TechGuy (Feb 12, 1999)

I'm not sure that I see the big deal on this one. Software manufacturers have been doing it for years. Look purchasing Windows Server, for example -- it's "locked" so that only 5 users can use it at a time unless you pay Microsoft extra money per user. You're not actually getting anything for that money -- just additional access to what you already have. I think it's a fair way to charge more to the people who need the extra capability. Just my two cents.


----------



## lotuseclat79 (Sep 12, 2003)

Hi Mike,

I understand what you are saying from a business seat point-of-view with regard to the seller's strategy, however, in this case it is not about adding more user seats with regard to servicing a user base, but about more capability that is already built-in which cannot be used aka extra threads and cache for which you already paid the money IMHO.

-- Tom


----------



## Ent (Apr 11, 2009)

Is this actually unlocking capacity that you paid for? That is to say do you pay the price for a dual-core chip and then find that one is locked, or do you pay the amount for a single core chip? If they're trying to charge you for capacity you already bought then that's just stealing, no two ways about it. 

But if not then let them have their business. It merely boils down to graduated products with a higher price for a better product for those that will pay. You can argue that the extra $50 is too high since the increased production cost is effectively null. But if you think that then don't buy it. Meanwhile if they want to pour more resources into useless (locked) areas of the chip then that's their decision; what does the consumer care so long as the chip works as advertised?


----------



## lotuseclat79 (Sep 12, 2003)

Intel Offering CPU Upgrade Card.

Only for 2.8-GHz, dual-core Pentium G6951.

-- Tom


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

IBM did this from the 60's on, they were famous for the "Series-50" machines, that just needed a jumper to double their capacity. Naturally, that jumper cost you big time!


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

And if they sold them unlocked for $50 more? I don't see the issue. They have a function for sale and you pay for it.

I had to drill a hole into an AMD chip to remove the trace that locked the ability to change the multiplier. At least it's not something that desperate. Just shell out the money and you get what they are selling.

It's like moving into a house and seeing a phone on the desk. Do you really expect it to work just because it is there, or do you just pay for it to be connected and get that added functionality?


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

I say its more like buying a house, with a phone and a working line then being told to use the phone it would cost more. With an OS you pay for certain things, like concurrent sessions via RDP. XP does not allow it because its a 'business' function... and the TOS says so upfront. Sure you can hack your way to get XP to run exactly like 2003, or 7 to run exactly like 2008 R2. 

There is just something so wrong feeling with crippling hardware and then re-selling the same chip.


----------

