Pay $50 to Unlock More Cache and Hyp-Threading

I bet Intel was not very happy at Microsoft when they dropped you having to have an VT enabled CPU to use Win7 Xp mode , I bet a few customers would have payed the $50 to have VT switched on.

 

I'm surprised they didn't come up with the idea of unlocking multipliers. Maybe one or two bins or something like that. I know it would take away from the available higher binned parts, but I think this makes more sense than HT or VT as a better upgrade option if Intel insists on this kind of thing

 

Okay, let's look at it this way.

You need to buy a new notebook right away. However, you only have enough money for a Pentium when you really want to have HT. But then, you find out that you can easily upgrade later! You end up paying a little more than you should be overall, but you at least that last $50 can come a few weeks or months later. Is your first thought really going to be the fact that you're getting ripped off? You're always getting ripped off. Everything is a rip-off. This actually makes those CPUs less of a rip-off when you think about it, especially if someone were to find a way to significantly overclock the processor (thus making up for the price gap).

As for the "ethics" argument, ethics doesn't lead to profit. None of you would say "We can't do that because it's unethical" if you were at a meeting discussing this. You can say that you would, but you'd be lying. Greed drives profit. It's not always fair, but that's life. At least there are some benefits to this and they're not just jacking up prices and calling it a day.

 

As already said why should you have to pay for something which is already here. You're already paying at start in order they disable it. They should unlock it at start and not make you pay for that

It already happened to me and I said no so not everybody is like you
At least talking about it during a meeting can open new solutions but that's it

Sorry but in arabic countries unethical business is not allowed and they are still in business for what I know
There are also some ethics companies who have succeed like the one lending money to the poorest people on earth and which has now more than 100 millions of clients in the world
There are several of them here is one :
Bank becomes rich by lending to poor | PRI.ORG

Intel hasn't been a good example of ethical business recently
(Doesn't mean that AMD is better anyway)
Just look at the last battle between Intel and AMD
Didn't Intel paid billions to AMD to close the affair?
Intel, AMD to Bury Antitrust Hatchet; Intel to Pay $1.25b - Law Blog - WSJ

 

As far as what you said, you're right. The main thing that makes me angry about this, though, is the Microsoft tie in, and the Active Management Tech software that's required to activate features and keys. I don't like what kind of security vulnerabilities that blows wide open. Windows Validation is horrible, but that's the way it's been for quite some time with Microsoft. Intel is messing with a proven system. CPU's have never needed anything but power to do everything they're built to do. Now that they're introducing the firmware controlled options, it just puts an unnecessary step in a process that hasn't had any need to change.

And I agree with you guys. For people that don't know how to open up their computer and replace parts or CPU's, this is kind of a decent idea. But still... when some malicious software comes around and exploits this like everyone knows COULD happen, they now have control over low level hardware features. I REALLY hope there are abstraction layers involved in how they're implementing this. Also, I'm not entirely sure that even if this were to go beyond just the G6951, that these kinds of options would ever end up at places like newegg or tigerdirect. They would probably only be available to OEM's.

 

Dude, you don't know what you are talking about. Every CPU made in the last 15 years has been like this. Crippling/limiting processors is the standard. How else do you think Intel or AMD has more than 1 processor for sale at any given time? And it is extremely simple to do. If they did not do this, they would have 1 processor for sale for everyone. It would make top end computers cheaper, but it would also make cheap computers more expensive, since they could only sell processors at one price point.

 

I'm not sure about you. Usually manufacturers "cut" the die, ie... don't include that functionality in the first place. AMD, for example, does not include L3 cache in many of their Athlon processors, while at the same time they do include multiple cores, but bin them based on the performance of the chips - not just arbitrarily selling it at a lower capability. Its all about decreasing the transistor count (and thus die size) in order to save on manufacturing costs, companies have been cutting their full dies for many years... I'm not sure what you think you're talking about, but they certainly don't just toss in the extra 500 million transistors in the Phenom II X2 just to sell it as an Athlon II X2...

 

Do you honestly think that every single Pentium and Celeron sold before now was defective? If so, you're only fooling yourself. It's always been like this. The only difference is that now, rather than being stuck with an intentionally crippled processor which will always be crippled, you now have the option of uncrippling it for less than the price of buying a new CPU with those features. If anything, this actually benefits the customer.

I stand somewhat corrected. However, when you're in the mindset of American business, you realize quickly that taking advantage of everything you can is the only way to compete. That sometimes means throwing away your values and if you can't manage to do that, you'll be out in no time.

And how many of those businesses are as well known as Intel, AMD, Nvidia, Microsoft, Apple, HP, Dell, etc., etc., etc.?

And again, why are you complaining now about something Intel has always done?

 

We could talk for hours but I see here it's more a matter of opinion
you won't change mind and I won't neither as you didn't convince me and I didn't convince you

 

Yes, your example does show a different core being used for a different type of otherwise identical processor. I didn't say that doesn't happen. That is also how we got two penyrn dies, the big with 6MB l2 cache and the small, with 3MB l2 cache. But if you think that refutes what I am saying, you are gravely mistaken.

For example, Intel only has two dies they make for mobile Core i processors. They have the 32nm dual core Arrandale (Clarkdale on the desktop), and the 45nm quad core Clarksfield (Lynnfield on the desktop. All variations of mobile Core i celerons, pentiums, 3's, 5's, and 7's are derived from these. Both have versions with disabled hyperthreading, cache, ability to execute certain instruction sets, turbo-boost, speed-step, capped memory usage, virtualization support, etc. This isn't binning, this is nixing fully usable cores to satisfy market demands. If all Arrandales were set to the full ability from the factory, in a laptop everyone would have an i7 620. Low end desktop i3's wouldn't easily reach 4.5Ghz if this was an issue.

 

This kind of thing is completely cynical on Intel's part.

Cache & HT will mean 99% of SFA for most consumer users, but that's exactly who it's aimed at. The "My *hard drive*'s not as fast as it was when I bought it" brigade.

This particular iteration is IMO just market research to see how it goes.

(CPU and GPU manufacturers have been die-harvesting for decades, and the only reason they started lasercutting was all the softmodded Radeon and Geforce cards there were 5-6 years ago (I unlocked my 2nd-hand-bought NV40 6800XT from 8pp/4vp to 16pp/5vp and superceeded performance of a version OF THE SAME DIE sold for $200 more))

I share the same hope that it will be reverse-engineerable but I'm seriously doubting it. Hell, no-one's figured out how to undervolt mobile i7 chips and that's far less likely to require the decryption of hardware codes and online realtime key authentication designed by a professional security company...

 

undervolting i7 chips can be done with a pin mod.

 

Not sure why you quoted me, are you suggesting I said disabling features saves Intel money? Well I didn't say that, but why do you say they have to take more time to disable features? Do you think the silicon is cut from the wafer already magically programmed as to what processor it is going to be? No, each die needs to be tested and from the results of that can be programmed accordingly, with or without disabled/activated features.

Why cant you understand that by disabling features those processors can be sold cheaper for those who do not want or can not afford to spend so much money.

I already gave an analogy with Windows. Let me try again. Starter has limited RAM and can only open three non-OS programs at a time. If you want to use more RAM and open more programs you need to purchase an upgrade. Why do you think MS do this? Because there is a market for a lower priced OS. In the same way there is a market for lower priced CPUs.

:laugh: Just look how long it took to find how to unlock unlocked/extreme Core 2's without BIOS options and that was extremely simply.

If you can do hardware you can do so much more than just relying on BIOS and software.

 

mobile? I can't find *any* reference to undervolt i7 mobile via pinmod.

---
Trottel, yes every i3/i5 etc starts out as the same Arrandale die as used in a i7 620m. BUT not every transistor is 100% functional, this is the concept of "yield" - how many of the dies on a wafer are 100% functional as a i7 620. Some have flatout errors which mean the parts of that chip are non-functional, it depends whether those errors are in cache or HT or TB circuitry etc. Others have high leakage from some/many transistors which mean running them at 620m speeds will breach the 35W TDP if they are able to do so at all. What that Arrandale die ends up being sold as depends on the independent characteristics of that die...

...except where there is higher demand for lower-price chips, then Intel need to use dies they *could* use for higher bins (i5, i7 620m) but need to fill demand for the lower bins (i3) else you have out of stock OEMs and pissed off people all round. Which leaves open the possibility of "unlocking" those features after sale, by hackish workarounds (yay) or heavily secured upgrade options (boo)

 

Waiting for the integration of Song Tagging sure sounds like a financial consideration to me, especially if that's the only thing delaying the release. "Oh, we don't want you to be able to listen to the FM radio until we have a way to make money off of it in place."

The Bluetooth controversy is even worse; that $10 fee is to upgrade from OS 2.0 to OS 3.0, running on the same hardware. However, when they went to the iPod Touch 3GS, they kept selling the 8 GB 2GS... with OS 3.0 included, and no need for an upgrade fee. So why not offer the upgrade to OS 3.0 for free? After all, you already paid for the hardware when you bought your iPod Touch 2GS.

You are quite correct that Apple never admitted that they did these things because of financial considerations. However, the chances that they didn't are, in my opinion, minimal. So, basically, you're complaining that Intel is more honest than Apple, because they admit up-front exactly what is going on. Sounds a heck of a lot more ethical to me.

Oh, you're almost certainly correct that this is the first time this has been done in the consumer CPU market... probably because this is the first time technology has advanced far enough that it can be done without someone making a house call thanks to remote internet activation, which makes the cost threshold required for this kind of service much lower.

Which "G" series? Except for my brief attempted foray into the world of soldered notebook chips (U5400/i3-330UM), we've been talking almost exclusively about the G6950 and G6951. The G6951 is the one that comes in a "locked" configuration only slightly better than the G6950, and can be unlocked via an upgrade code to use a different set of firmware that apparently allows for an extra 1 MB L3 cache and activates hyper-threading.

I think I'm still about the same place as I was before. I think in principle there's nothing wrong with the idea, given adequate/appropriate hardware implementation (I'm in agreement with H.A.L. 9000 on that front, and it at least sounds like they're trying to do a continuous internet connection DRM sort of thing like Ubisoft did for Assasin's Creed 2... and we all know how well that turned out). To me, it all still comes down to the pricing model, and even then... prices can change. If prices are ridiculously exorbitant, then there's obviously room there for AMD to move in.

 

Yes for both mobile and desktop chips, just download the datasheet from intels website. It has a vid table and shows which pins are used.

The mod is the same as it always has been with other intel chips.

 

Completely agree. And to everyone... we don't know what Intel's exact binning process is. One of these "DRM" laced concoctions needs to be spotted in the wild with pricing and such, and then Intel can be put under the magnifying glass again. And although I'm still 75% against the idea, I want to see Intel play this card they've thrown out. Even more, I want to see the general public's reaction to this if/when it hits retail.

 

The spec sheet does show VID's as it should, it also explains the dynamic nature of the VID's.

"The VID will change due to temperature, frequency and/or power mode load changes in order to minimize the power of the part."

So while your statement is true, I would not recommend nor even attempt to mess with the VID's.

These parts are not like core 2 parts in that control of VID's can be workable, i7's are just to dynamic to be able to effectively override what voltages the CPU asks for.

 

core 2 parts were dynamic, they would go into a state where thier voltage is super low, can't change that with software.

I haven't tried the mod with an i7 myself, but I would if I had one

Anyway, I was just saying it was possible, not that it would work well or that it was a good idea.

 

I can download RAM??????? Where!?!?!?!? I need some for my desktop at home. And if you know where I can get more Gb's for download, post a link.

HILLARIOUS

 

Here:
Download More RAM!

But don't get too much ram

 

I'm well aware of what yields are, and you do not give Intel enough credit. If there were as many defects as you make it sound, Intel would be in deep doo-doo. First of all, if there were even close to as many defects to make it necessary to disable one or more of all the gee-wiz features which are taking up a small minority of the die space, it would mean that there are on average enough defects on the rest of the die to render at least 90% of dies worthless. Also all processors are going to consume the same amount of energy if run at the same settings. When you have 100 million transistors, things tend to even out. What holds back running at higher clock speeds is the weakest link or links on the processor die; something is going to stop operating correctly first. But you, I, and everyone else here don't know if they are even binning their processors, let alone how it is done on the assembly line. Sure you might assume that the extreme edition cores are the pick of the litter, and they probably are, but the core of a low-end processor has the possibility of being better. When they do bin, manufacturers are rarely very thorough and most of the time the parts are very conservatively rated. These days even the lowliest i3 desktop chip from Intel will clock much higher than the fastest stock processor frequency. At that point why would Intel waste a lot of time and effort to test the performance envelope of many processors on the assembly line? On top of that mobile cores are commonly considered to be binned higher desktop counterparts due to the power and heat constraints of their application, even though on average they are running at much slower speeds.

But there is just no way that binning has any major effect on what processors are being produced. If some of their supposed lowest bins are all capable of operating well at over 4Ghz, then it must clearly be the market that is doing the majority of dictating what processors are produced and not manufacturing.

There is no way to unlock anything on a cpu. The only way they are coming out with this now is by changing something in the chips that allows it to be unlocked by the motherboard bios or something like that.

 

LOL

This is funny.

 

it seems that they can be pin modded but the location of the VID pins, Vcc pins, and Vss pins is so akward that doing the mod almost imposable

 

One more thing about i7 pin mods, maybe someone wants to try a QPIFREQSEL pin mod on a mobile i7 (if you can find the similar pin on the mobile chips).

 

Wow 8 pages, I only got to 2.

But isn't this like Intel sells you a Pentium Dual, after you unlock it, its an i3/i5?

 

As of right now, I would love to pay $50 to turn my Core i5-430UM into an i7-680UM.

 

Sort of. The difference isn't quite so extreme, but that's about the basic essence of it, yes. The current issues are mainly from those who feel "cheated" because they think they're not getting the full value of their hardware ("The hardware is already all there on the CPU, why do I have to pay extra to make it work?"), and worries about security through AMT.

Which reminded me enough to do a quick search, and still no word on pricing for the actual CPU... although most speculation says price will stay about the same (as the G6950) which is about what I expected.