Stupid Intel!
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11379089[^] What kind of a half arsed idea is this?!:mad: I'm actually pretty annoyed, it means you would have to buy an upgrade for something it can already do! The money grabbing fools!:thumbsdown:
The unofficial awesome history of Code Project's Bob! "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
Whether the upgrade was on the same chip or a separate chip, you're paying either way, so what's the gripe?
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"Man who follows car will be exhausted." - Confucius
-
Mladen Jankovic wrote:
if you don't like it, buy amd instead, no reason to be angry/annoyed
Until AMD adopts a similar model. These companies have a tendency to copy eachother, so rather than differentiate, AMD might just pick up the idea (for fear of being left out?).
aspdotnetdev wrote:
Until AMD adopts a similar model. These companies have a tendency to copy eachother, so rather than differentiate, AMD might just pick up the idea (for fear of being left out?).
AFAIK AMD has never played the increase your product line by disabling minor features in part of your production runs. Like everyone else they speedbin (and as all OCers know they're conservative here because they have to remain stable when the heatsink is clogged with cruft and it's in an un-air conditioned room in the summer). The dual/tri-core chips they're selling from cut down quads aren't the same thing because significant numbers are severely unstable at room temperature, and as mentioned above they have to be sold while stable in really hot conditions.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
harold aptroot wrote:
You know what would save the user even more trouble? Not having to upgrade at all because the functionality is already there.
My thoughts exactly
harold aptroot wrote:
I hope (and expect) someone will hack it.
Me too!
The unofficial awesome history of Code Project's Bob! "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
Lloyd Atkinson wrote:
harold aptroot wrote: I hope (and expect) someone will hack it. Me too!
I don't. Allowing microcode modifications outside the factory is begging for a rootkit on the CPU itself (and thus below the level of any hypervisor/etc). If it can be modified by one 3rd party for an arguably harmless reason there's nothing preventing 3rd parties from being able to do it for malicious reasons. I'm dubious that it'll be possible, but a completely hackproof intel update mechanism is the only way we have to prevent the cpu's from getting rooted. The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced my initial reaction was wrong and it's a major blunder from a technological perspective.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
Whether the upgrade was on the same chip or a separate chip, you're paying either way, so what's the gripe?
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"Man who follows car will be exhausted." - Confucius
AND, when you buy 3GHz chip to upgrade a 2GHz, you are effectively repurchasing that 2GHz in addition to the extra 1GHz. This method reduces that waste by allowing the user to effectively only pay for the extra 1GHz.
-
Lloyd Atkinson wrote:
harold aptroot wrote: I hope (and expect) someone will hack it. Me too!
I don't. Allowing microcode modifications outside the factory is begging for a rootkit on the CPU itself (and thus below the level of any hypervisor/etc). If it can be modified by one 3rd party for an arguably harmless reason there's nothing preventing 3rd parties from being able to do it for malicious reasons. I'm dubious that it'll be possible, but a completely hackproof intel update mechanism is the only way we have to prevent the cpu's from getting rooted. The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced my initial reaction was wrong and it's a major blunder from a technological perspective.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
Dan Neely wrote:
I don't. Allowing microcode modifications outside the factory is begging for a rootkit on the CPU itself (and thus below the level of any hypervisor/etc). If it can be modified by one 3rd party for an arguably harmless reason there's nothing preventing 3rd parties from being able to do it for malicious reasons. I'm dubious that it'll be possible, but a completely hackproof intel update mechanism is the only way we have to prevent the cpu's from getting rooted.
True, although if it is simply a key that you use to "upgrade" it, then maybe one day someone will figure out the algorithm to generate keys, although Intel probably thought of this.
The unofficial awesome history of Code Project's Bob! "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
-
I agree. Especially useful for laptops I think, after all you buy the cheap laptop because you don't have the cash, then have to buy a whole new laptop because you just can't upgrade the processor without busting the motherboard. This way you can upgrade the laptop without even opening the box. Desktops are easier to upgrade though.
If you have knowledge, let others light their candles at it. Margaret Fuller (1810 - 1850) [My Articles] [My Website]
On the other hand, you still have the bottlenecks associated with the FSB, HD, DRAM, and Graphics chips ... if the low end machine uses support parts that are optimized for the "brain dead" CPU, then upgrading (unlocking) just the processor will not do as much as some would hope for...
Steve _________________ I C(++) therefore I am
-
Lloyd Atkinson wrote:
harold aptroot wrote: I hope (and expect) someone will hack it. Me too!
I don't. Allowing microcode modifications outside the factory is begging for a rootkit on the CPU itself (and thus below the level of any hypervisor/etc). If it can be modified by one 3rd party for an arguably harmless reason there's nothing preventing 3rd parties from being able to do it for malicious reasons. I'm dubious that it'll be possible, but a completely hackproof intel update mechanism is the only way we have to prevent the cpu's from getting rooted. The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced my initial reaction was wrong and it's a major blunder from a technological perspective.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
If it gets hacked, Intel may be "forced" to stop this nonsense. And even if they don't, free upgrades for all.. It doesn't sound particularly hard to me to make this interface in a way that it does not let you do anything other than unlocking the extra power, but I'm not a hardware engineer.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11379089[^] What kind of a half arsed idea is this?!:mad: I'm actually pretty annoyed, it means you would have to buy an upgrade for something it can already do! The money grabbing fools!:thumbsdown:
The unofficial awesome history of Code Project's Bob! "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
Intel and AMD both release chips that have functionally on the chip that is intentionally disabled so that they can have many different models for consumers to choose from and many price levels. They have been doing this for over 20 years. It's actually too costly to make more than a few steppings.
John
modified on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 9:09 PM
-
aspdotnetdev wrote:
Until AMD adopts a similar model.
Then comeback here, where you will be told to switch to ARM/SPARC/MIPS/PowerPC/Alpha/whatever.
aspdotnetdev wrote:
AMD might just pick up the idea
At which point it becomes standard business practice, so you'll have following options: a) switch to another architecture b) start your own company that will manufacture processors c) leave the industry altogether
[Genetic Algorithm Library] [Wowd]
modified on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 1:56 PM
Mladen Jankovic wrote:
Alpha
Thank you! I actually have a MicroVAX on the way (I hope). It'll join my two Alphas. (Alphata? :confused: )
-
AND, when you buy 3GHz chip to upgrade a 2GHz, you are effectively repurchasing that 2GHz in addition to the extra 1GHz. This method reduces that waste by allowing the user to effectively only pay for the extra 1GHz.
Buuuut... Who knows what technological gains will be made after purchasing the crippled chip? You may wind up buying a new chip rather than upgrading the existing one anyway.
-
Buuuut... Who knows what technological gains will be made after purchasing the crippled chip? You may wind up buying a new chip rather than upgrading the existing one anyway.
Indeed. Though that problem already exists. However, I could see that driving up the base cost of chips, since some people will never upgrade.
-
Mladen Jankovic wrote:
Alpha
Thank you! I actually have a MicroVAX on the way (I hope). It'll join my two Alphas. (Alphata? :confused: )
Too bad they killed it, it was a real masterpiece and perfect response when somebody tries to drag you into lame Intel vs. AMD discussion.
-
Too bad they killed it, it was a real masterpiece and perfect response when somebody tries to drag you into lame Intel vs. AMD discussion.
You mean "Intel vs. lame AMD" discussion. :cool: