Surge pricing of a limited resource is not exactly "price discrimination" in the way that term is used traditionally in economics. Per wikipedia: "Price discrimination is a microeconomic pricing strategy where identical or largely similar goods or services are sold at different prices..."

In the case of surge pricing, there is just not enough goods or services to sell, so you simply dynamically increase the price in response to demand akin to an auction, not selling it more expensively to a subset of customers simply because they can pay and to others for lower prices (which presumes a supply surplus exists). In other words, an "Uber ride at rush hour" is not a substantially similar product to "Uber ride in off-peak time".

At least surge pricing makes sense - when there are more fares than drivers, the fares have to pay more to be picked up first.

With CPUs, it's less intuitive - The people with DRM-hamstrung CPUs are supposed to be getting a cheaper price subsidized by the people buying the product at full price. The cheaper models otherwise would have to be sold at the full price.

That's not to say that Intel's prices are necessarily fair at any tier...

It only happens when there is not robust competition (even 5-6 big players is not enough), which is the case in pretty much every non-commodity market today.