[aphextron]

>on Intels x299 you have to pay 100$ extra for RAID 1 and 300$ for RAID 5 support with their VROC feature [1]

This really bothers me about Intel. It's not like they have a separate die for these chips. They are literally charging you to flip a switch on something you already paid for.

[pacificmint]

They didn't used to do that. I feel that it became more and more common the less competitive AMD became, in some kind of direct correlation. (Not that this is some kind of big surprise)

So hopefully the fresh wind and competition that AMD is bringing forward will put the pressure back on.

[andrewstuart2]

Not that I really agree with their decision, but to play devil's advocate: they are essentially creating multiple products without having to waste effort and resources on creating separate dies, and without you having to throw away money (e.g. selling your used board) to get new features.

My money says that they were probably set on multiple product levels, and some engineer said "hey, we can be less wasteful here by creating only one board." So now you can pay $100 to unlock RAID 1 whereas before you would've had to either pony up before you needed it, or sold your used $500 board for $350 to buy the new $600 board with RAID.

Again, not saying I agree with the decision to charge for RAID when it's obviously included already, but that it's probably at least less wasteful than the alternative of actually having separate dies.

[infogulch]

You have this backwards. Well, mostly. Having a separate die is definitely not the other option. A separate die would cost millions of dollars to develop, test, and produce separately, even for a smallish feature like this. The resulting price hike to cover the R&D would push the product even farther out of the competitive market than they are now.

No, the only two options are the ones Intel and AMD have already taken: artificial segmentation via feature flags, or just opening it up entirely.

I don't really like the artificial segmentation thing but I can't seem to reconcile that feeling with my feelings on software licensing, which doesn't bother me but can be the exact same thing.

[tdb7893]

The artificial segmentation I don't like because I view it as a market failure. In a more competitive market they probably wouldn't be able to segment it like that

[kajecounterhack]

If it makes you feel any worse both AMD and Intel provide cheaper chips by disabling cores on more expensive chips.

To me it's fine -- it's just a method of manufacture. No different than buying different versions of software.

"They are literally charging you to flip a switch on something you already paid for." << To be clear, physically you have the thing in your possession, and you could physically figure out how to flip the bit or re-enable disabled cores (people do try this). I'm 100% for that being legal since it's a physical device -- no DRM for me. But I'm also 100% OK with them doing this to begin with if it makes it cheaper for them to give me their base product.

[Veratyr]

Don't they generally disable those cores because they have more flawed silicon?

[Grazester]

Yes.

[bjpbakker]

So you're saying no to DRM (which I fully agree on). But hen you seem to say DRM is fine if it makes products cheaper.

That's basically you hopping onboard with DRM. It's always the excuse of manufacturers that their DRM makes things cheaper or more secure (the latter is what Intel used on its ridiculous ME).

[kajecounterhack]

It's not drm if you're allowed by law to circumvent it when you know how. At that point it's obfuscation.