View Single Post
Old 21 July 2015, 22:14   #63
furtling tinkerer

Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Mouhet France
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag View Post
i really don't understand what all the fuss is about... hardware manufacturers have been doing this sort of thing since forever. AMD, Intel &c all do it, it's called "product binning". When they introduce a new line of CPUs, they haven't designed and made different ones to run at different speeds. They produce loads all the same and then see how fast they will go, because manufacturing is always a bit unpredictable and sometimes chips have faults.
Thats not the same case here though is it? With o/c in general knowing you may or may not be lucky with no guarantees its going on. Parts binning is production tolerances and some of the batch sample tests being out of spec for the higher grade stuff, and its a game of chance if the more out of spec parts will perform to the faster spec and you pays your money and takes your chances. You can't return that silicon because it failed to perform faster or with more cores than the manufacturer guarantees, your taking a chance and owning the risks if it doesnt work trading off the risk against cost savings for living on the edge a little. For their part, the manufacturer gets to backfill production demand of the lower spec by slipping in the faster surplus units at no extra real risk to themselves, and saves having rupture of stock and lost sales.

In this case, the sillicon is known to have the extra capability onboard already in advance. So it is known crippled by the locking firmware or you would have to perform hardware changes to upgrade.

If your ok with that philisophically then fine, but maybe its why people are making a fuss about it.
MrFluffy is offline  
Page generated in 0.03868 seconds with 10 queries