Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel invents overclock deterrent method

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Intel invents overclock deterrent method

    This is as suspect as the source but anyway :
    Intel invents overclock deterrent method

    Multiplier locking was obviusly not enough
    If there's artificial intelligence, there's bound to be some artificial stupidity.

    Jeremy Clarkson "806 brake horsepower..and that on that limp wrist faerie liquid the Americans call petrol, if you run it on the more explosive jungle juice we have in Europe you'd be getting 850 brake horsepower..."

  • #2
    Yeah, I heard about this a little while ago, good to see they got the patent on it.

    Contrary to popular belief, Intel doesn't prevent overclocking to keep you and me from doing it. They prevent it to keep resellers from screwing us over with rebadged products.

    - Gurm
    The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!

    I'm the least you could do
    If only life were as easy as you
    I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
    If only life were as easy as you
    I would still get screwed

    Comment


    • #3
      So in other words, mobo makers like Asus, MSI, Abit and Giga-byte can still bypass the o/c lock, but for OEM boards sold cheap in bulk, they can lock it out so people won't get gipped.

      Jammrock
      “Inside every sane person there’s a madman struggling to get out”
      –The Light Fantastic, Terry Pratchett

      Comment


      • #4
        Entirely possible, Jammrock. But yeah, basically they want to make sure that you don't walk down to "Chuck's House of PC's" and buy a P4 2.0Ghz that's really a P4 1.6Ghz, since the only person that makes out in that equation is the guy who remarked the chip.

        - Gurm
        The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!

        I'm the least you could do
        If only life were as easy as you
        I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
        If only life were as easy as you
        I would still get screwed

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Gurm
          Yeah, I heard about this a little while ago, good to see they got the patent on it.

          Contrary to popular belief, Intel doesn't prevent overclocking to keep you and me from doing it. They prevent it to keep resellers from screwing us over with rebadged products.

          - Gurm
          I disagree. I think AMD does a pretty good job of preventing rebadges, without locking the chip down completely.

          Also, AMD is the one pushing for extended BIOS space where the chip reports its own model.
          Gigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP.

          Comment


          • #6
            my P4 1.6a reports that it is a p4 1.6 in windows no matter what speed it's runnung at.

            Also that seems to be a lot of trouble for nothing and may make the alleged practice of "speed binning" more difficult.
            Last edited by capt. marvel; 27 March 2003, 20:45.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by capt. marvel
              Also that seems to be a lot of trouble for nothing and may make the alleged practice of "speed binning" more difficult.
              There's nothing alleged about it. It's a fact of the industry. Also, this wouldn't make it any harder. The "max-allowed" register doesn't need to be anything new, it could just be a bunch of blown fuses, just as the clock multiplier already is.
              Gigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP.

              Comment


              • #8
                Since the 32KHz oscillator is the one fed from the chipset, then it should be possible for motherboard makers, or tinkerers to change this clock to compensate for overclocked Front side busses. This could be done by placing a programmable oscillator onboard or as a tinkerer place a different frequency crystal feeding the overclocking detection circuit.

                Actual Patent

                9. A computer system, comprising:

                a clock generator to generate a clock signal for data processing operations;

                a chipset coupled to the processor and comprises a reference clock signal for providing real-time clock a processor to process data information based on said clock signal;

                , and an over-clock deterrent mechanism for detecting and deterring over-clocking of said clock signal, said over-clock deterrent mechanism comprising:

                a detection circuit to detect over-clocking of said clock signal based on said reference clock signal; and

                a prevention circuit to prevent over-clocking of said clock signal by either disabling operations of the processor or limiting performance of the processor in response to detection of said over-clocking of said clock signal.


                Just my thoughts anyways
                We have enough youth - What we need is a fountain of smart!


                i7-920, 6GB DDR3-1600, HD4870X2, Dell 27" LCD

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Gurm
                  Entirely possible, Jammrock. But yeah, basically they want to make sure that you don't walk down to "Chuck's House of PC's" and buy a P4 2.0Ghz that's really a P4 1.6Ghz, since the only person that makes out in that equation is the guy who remarked the chip.

                  - Gurm
                  NO. Chuck can still sell you an OC'ed system and Joe Average would be none the wiser. Intel does it to prevent unscrupulous companies to sell rebadged chips on the gray market.

                  If you want to OC, simply buy an Asus or whatever brand hat has OC options. It's not like the price difference with a plain vanilla ECS is that big. You get it back by buying a cheaper CPU.

                  The problem would arise if you bought a chip that's marked 2.0GHz and you want to OC it to 2.66GHz but you can't because you really bought a rebadged 1.6GHz but you paid it the price of a 2.0...that's the kind of stuff Intel wants to prevent.

                  Now, Joe Average just bought one chip, imagine the lost revenue on thousands of chips. Plus the whole channel suffers from this, starting from Intel to the reseller and the poor guy who bought it (higher price, no warranty).

                  The one that makes the money is the "rebadger" and it's usually pretty hard to trace them back.

                  Besides, the anti-overclocking feature has been discussed already before the introduction of the P4. Check Ars Technica for an article.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Kurt, that's what I meant. I'm not saying Chuck overclocked the chip. I'm saying the guys that Chuck bought the chips from cheap... did.

                    - Gurm
                    The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!

                    I'm the least you could do
                    If only life were as easy as you
                    I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
                    If only life were as easy as you
                    I would still get screwed

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Gurm
                      Kurt, that's what I meant. I'm not saying Chuck overclocked the chip. I'm saying the guys that Chuck bought the chips from cheap... did.

                      - Gurm
                      Gotcha, but he wouldn't have remarked the chip, just sold it as a part it was not. Remarking the chip takes a bit more effort than just OCing it (need to "sand" the surface and reprint it...too much hassle for a small shop).

                      Now, if it were a BIG shop...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I don't think chips are remarked much anymore. I don't buy Intel's explanation of it all. They just want to try to make it harder for the end user to OC, so they get less "DOA" chips returned to them. Note the quotation marks.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          unless you OC way beyond spec and forget to put a fan on your chip, Pentiums are pretty good at staying alive.

                          anyway, chip remarking happens at larger scales than the mom &pop shops. techniques change, but if there's enough profit to be made, there's always some ppl that will try to profit from an opportunity.

                          I can't say how many chips get remarked - I'm not Intel, but I'm fairly sure the practice is alive and kickin'...

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X