Intel Posts Updated "Software Defined Silicon" Driver To Activate Licensed Hardware Features

[dlq84]

I so happy that AMD exists.
Thanks to AMD we got dual-core, 64-bit and virtualization, which we probably wouldn't get without AMD pushing it.
Now if only AMD could push ECC on consumer desktop motherboards and laptops that would be great.

And more than 4 cores on desktop, and more than 5% performance improvement every other year.

[ddriver]

Hey, why stop at asking people to pay to enable features that are already there

They should create a feature where your cpu spontaneously crashes, and you have to pay a subscription to stop that anti-feature.

The longer since the expiration of the anti-crash subscription, the more frequent the crashes. Maybe add a rising chance to brick the system while at it.

[ddriver]

I so happy that AMD exists.
Thanks to AMD we got dual-core, 64-bit and virtualization, which we probably wouldn't get without AMD pushing it.
Now if only AMD could push ECC on consumer desktop motherboards and laptops that would be great.

That happiness might not last. As amd's business situation is improving, its alleged love for consumers is dwindling.

Amd is out there for the same reason as intel - to make money. They just haven't been in a position to afford to be as shitty as intel.

But they might just get there. I mean... their CPU lineup has already diminished its value proposition to the level of intel cpus.

They are selling 128 bit gpus at the prices of 256 bit from just a few generations back. Not the slightest hint of reluctance to capitalize on the chip shortage.

Furthermore, amd is getting all cozy and comfy in bed with some of the most anti-user big tech companies out there, which also happen to be the most wealthy of all, to no coincidence. Amd is very eager to neglect the end users that got it through its decade of mediocrity and absence of competitiveness in order to cater to those "openly evil" mega corporations.

I never really understood this "intel bad, amd good" saga, obviously, the underdog is not in a position to be as obnoxious as a dominant practical monopoly.

[nils_]

Because overpaying for the cpu is not enough. We really have to work on uprooting that vile concept of end user ownership. The end user is not supposed to own anything, the end user is supposed to be owned by big tech.

This already happens in a limited way in the server space where the proprietary cloud vendors get first dibs on the new CPUs and your only option is to rent them and lock yourself into their ecosystem.

[RedEyed]

Fuck you Intel.

[Tian]

Does this means that I will be able to use hyperthreading and/or quicksync on my celeron (quicksync is available on windows on my cpu but not on linux)?

[waxhead]

This is the same poison that Microsoft does in their Windows operativsystem.

If(os_edition==home) maxnr_cpus=1;

It is really about that stupid. Intel plans to do essentially the same with hardware. REDUCING features for no good reason except profit is not the right way.

Heck now that the entire world is starting to look at thing such as right to repair, sustainability and all kinds of random more or less god intentioned nonsense/sane stuff - how can this even be suggested? Wake up!!!!

[billyswong]

This initiative does not render their other product market segmentation policies obsolete. Every defective chip still has to be sold as a lower tier product. As you pointed out, they can do this licensing option only with known good dies but on a mature process you essentially end up with a lot of good dies which at present need to be crippled artificially to meet the demand of the lower tier products. With this program Intel still can make some extra profit out of these known good chips and as long as the customer gets some value out of it, this could be a win-win for both sides.

Unless they are going to present CPU buyers a chip lottery, CPU that can't be uncrippled need to be in a different model number of those that can be uncrippled.

I have never heard anyone interested in upgrading a CPU from lower tier to higher tier in the same generation, even if there is trade-in. The so called extra market opportunity is non-existent. It is only useful for paving the road of hardware subscription similar to what companies did to software license.

[CommunityMember]

I have never heard anyone interested in upgrading a CPU from lower tier to higher tier in the same generation, even if there is trade-in. The so called extra market opportunity is non-existent.

History suggests otherwise. Amdahl did this with their 470V/5 and 470V/7 systems in the late 1970's, where the "variable-speed" feature (which enabled higher performance on-demand) turned out to be quite popular for some customers (even as some naysayers said it never would be).

[maveric7911]

Didn't AMD do a pretty close principle of function reduction when we had to use the pencil trick in order to get the entire use of that processor? I understand that was more hardware related but the idea isn't that different just shifting it to software.