[wyldfire]

Well, I doubt Intel sees it as a security feature first and foremost. But even if they did, they don't have an obligation to be "responsible" in how they market their features. Many of their pricing choices ultimately end up being related to yield. If they need to devote more transistors in order to enable an IOMMU, seems like it makes sense to charge more for it.

[wtallis]

Core count, clock speed, and cache quantity are related to yield. HyperThreading, VT-d, AVX, Turbo Boost, AES-NI, TSX, and ECC are all too integral to the core design; they're physically present on all chips and it is extremely unlikely for a manufacturing defect to affect one of those features without otherwise crippling the chip. Those features are used for product segmentation that is not driven by any real marginal cost.

[wtbob]

> But even if they did, they don't have an obligation to be "responsible" in how they market their features.

Intel is a corporation; its shareholders are shielded from personal financial liability for its errors; thus is seems appropriate that it be required to be responsible in exchange for the privileges it has been granted.