Looking at your metaphor, try it differently. These are low end processors, right? Assuming all other things are equal, would you rather buy a 200HP V6 from Kia, or a 200HP V6 from Chevy that has the option to later be upgraded for a few grand to a 450HP V8? If it costs Chevy the same to manufacture the two, they’ll try to extract a higher price out of the one that has more value. All the research that went into creating that low-cost, high-performance V8 may not be reflected in the manufacturing cost, but it’s a sunk cost nonetheless, and it certainly has VALUE. They’re not going to start selling all their big mighty engine at rock bottom prices just because it costs less to manufacture. By being able to disable some of the HP and two of the valves, they open the door for an upgrade, rather than an outright replacement (where you might go to a competitor instead) further down the road.

This has happened for years in computing, just never in the consumer processor space. Cisco sells optical switches for basically nothing but requires you to buy lasers from them, putting the cost of each additional port in the laser price. Heck, even Creative sold sound cards with many of the features disabled in the “included” version, to sell an upgrades “Sound Blaster SX Experience”. Many people happily paid it.

Sure, it would be great if we could pay for a low-end processor and have it perform like a midrange one. This is just another way to move money around the page and make it easier on the consumer to purchase and upgrade their system.

Plus you have to figure getting $50 late in the cycle (or half, assuming the store gets the other half) beats getting $2 more from the computer manufacturers early in the cycle.

Imagine buying a new BMW with a 450HP V8 engine, but right off of the lot it only has the performance of a 200HP V6… you don’t get the full power until you pay your dealership $5000 for a code that you enter into your car. Doesn’t that sound incredibly ridiculous?

The cost of producing these as two separate processors is undoubtedly higher than producing a single chip with different software versions. Why force lower-end machines (which are the most price competitive) to pay for more processing power than they need?

Instead, they can offer this as an upgrade down the line, rather than

The difference is price vs. value. There’s a value difference between the processors. The cost, however, is basically the same. Intel is not a cost-plus pricing model, they price products based on the perceived value. Optional upgrades increase value.