Slashdot Mirror
AMD Stops Overclockers Dream Motherboard
nerdusa writes: "The Overclocking Community got a decidedly unwelcome jolt with news today on THG that shipping versions of the TBird and Duron will be clock locked and that the Asus A7V is shipping without multiplier unlocking switches. United Overclockers, which had been eulogizing AMD for its recent poliicies, is "saddened" at having to eat its words. Overclockers are used to having their dreams dashed by reality, but this is a particularly cruel blow."
overclocking systems and selling them as the faster system. I would not be happy to find out that that 800mhz system I just bought was an overclocked 500mhz system.
I don't think there is a way to do it.
The Cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
the fact is, the new t-bird athlons will be locked to those who don't know the secrets. some hardware web sites have guides to changing the multiplier on the chip by connecting different contacts on the ceramic surface with a conducting ink pen. this just means the multiplier lock will be more difficult to overcome. before anyone flames AMD for this, remember that Intel has been locking processors since the p2-350. AMD provided a way to change the multiplier on the classic athlon (pretty ingenious if you ask me) with the goldfinger device, and they'll probably come through again. give them some credit, enough anti-amd sentiment.
I think overclocking is a damn cool thing, but I wish AMD had another way of dealing with remarked chips.
-=God Hates Me=-
Personaly I find this to be a very odd play for AMD. I guess I would have to ask if maybe the reason for it is that the chips arn't as stable as advertized? Or now that AMD has stolen the spot light a bit from Intel, are they picking up Intels bad habbits?
Either way I see it becomming a sore spot fast. I've been a loyal AMD consumer and overclocker but I guess I knew this would happen at some point. It would be too esay to make your own 1ghz chip with those chips and the new Asus board. Not to mention alot cheaper.
Trying to be different, just like everyone else.
There is a genuine problem with people reselling overclocked systems without the buyer knowing that they're getting a less reliable system. AMD have to protect their brand name, and having hordes of people claiming that AMD chips are unreliable because they've been sold overclocked systems is not a good way to stay in business long. Yes, it will prevent the hobbyist that knows the risks and accepts them. That said, most overclockers I've met don't fall into that category -- they tend to have the mentality "wow, I can make my machine go faster" without knowing how it works, and where the extra speed is coming from (hint: your safety margin before things start breaking).
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
This is a bit of a rant beyond the AMD thingie, so bear with me.
There's a trend running through the industry. When linux programmers write *free* drivers for new hardware, oftentimes the manufacturer is very reluctant to support the OS. Sometimes the developers have to struggle to wrench out closed specs to write the drivers, and still the corporation sees it fit to at best ignore it. Oh, and by the way, this results in more of their products being sold.
Enthusiasts are the forerunners to new technology. Generally they are the first to embrace it and forecast where the industry is going. At the very least, they provide valuable feedback. Yet for some reason, the history of the computer industry has seen established companies simply ignore enthusiasts. This goes for mainframe makers who ignored the PC, *nix vendors which dismissed linux as a toy, and MS which dissed the internet as a useless fad. It may also be that the music industry is on this track by opposing mp3 fans instead of seeing where they are headed.
As a larger trend, when companies which started out in the garage lose touch with their roots and ignore enthusiasts, it might mean they crumble under their own weight. But in specific cases, I simply fail to understand why companies don't support them. For instance, linux today has millions of users, and yet when I go to logitech's page to see if their cordless mouse works with linux, there is NO info on it at all. I have to dredge thru deja.com to see if anyone has posted it. Why? Does logitech not see the benefit of spending a few thousand $ to hire someone to update their web site with info about linux? Or even if drivers are needed, can't they hire a couple of guys to write them? Even if a small fraction of the linux base buys their mice, they have made a good profit.
What am I missing here?
w/m
Very simply. You make your CPUs so they announce to the world at bootup
AMD-K7-Athelon-500MHz Running at 800MHz.
There are 2 reasons AMD and iNTEL don't and won't do that however.
Reason Number 1. It would mean having different CPU dies for each chip they sell. They aren't going to do that. They prefer to simply build a batch of chips and depending on how clean they come out you put a label on to claim a specific clock speed. Yes. Specific clock speeds are determined after the fact before labeling is done, not before.
Reason Number 2. Any Information the CPU issues about itself must go through the BIOS 1st. The problem is that someone with the resources of a 2 bit 10 box a day CPU manufacturer can arrange to have the BIOS altered so the quote above would say nice things like.
AMD-K7-Athelon-800MHz Running at 800MHz.
Of course being crummy and moronic corporations they just refuse to level with the customer and will continue to mislead you all as to what exactly they sell and why. Frankly, I think people would be nicer to them if they leveled with us.
PS: As for Locking the BIOS. fat FSCKing chance. We have grown accustomed to adding new features and fixing old bugs by flashing the BIOS. We aren't even going back to the old days of swapping chips, let alone having no BIOS flexibility at all.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
> he fact is, the new t-bird athlons will be locked to those who don't know the secrets.
You can find a couple of quick links by visiting this article at The Register.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Underclocking is the art of running a modern high speed processor far below it's rated clock speed. As an example I have a AMD Athlon 800 MHz processor running at an amazing 200 MHz*. My goal to run it at 4.77 MHz so I can actually win at all those video games I have. By the way, OS is Windows 2000 which runs great at 200 MHz I can't wait to try it at 4.77 MHz. *I have a resistor on top to add additional heat so the processor doesn't get to cold.
You can probably still fiddle the FSB. But that pretty limits the options to a few percentages, as the FSB is already at 200.
I've been upgrading the FSB since my 10MHz-8088 machine. I replaced the 20MHz crystal by a 26MHz from my CB radio. Worked great, but the floppy controller couldn't take it. Had to build in a switch, but that crashed the machine due to spikes and stuff. So you had to turn it off, set it back to 20, and boot to use the floppy. Not too much trouble, because the boot took only 10 seconds in those dayz.
Darn. My FSB is now 112, btw.
GCS/MU d- s+: a- C++$ USH++$ P- L+> E W++$ N o-- K- W++@ O-- M- !V PS Y+ PGP- t+ 5(+) X- R tv? b++++ y++(+++)
Why don't guys like Intel and AMD put a teenie weanie bit of PROM in their chips (like they had for the serial number) that gets burned with the bus speed/multiplier? Then software (like the BIOS) could read this back when it does its usual CPUID trick and verify that the chip was running in spec.
;) and innocents wouldn't get burned by dodgy resellers.
The BIOS (and/or OS) could report that the system was being over/under clocked. The OCers would love this (especially if it came up in large red and orange letters
This strikes me as being pretty easy to implement particularly if you consider that Intel has already done this with its CPU serial number.
Well, the problem is, for any process that AMD can do after the production of the chip (which is when they determine the speed) which sets the REAL speed, some remarker can do it elsewhere.
If the chip speed is determined before final packaging, which I doubt, then I guess they could test the chip, then write something, then seal the chip off.
AMD does have a pretty interesting system, as you can see at the Tom's Hardware site linked in the story. They apparently use lasers to burn the REAL speed into the chip. I suppose they could have used this burned speed as the REAL speed, and had a softer overclocker method so that it would work as you suggested. Maybe that just hadn't occurred to them.
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
I overclock everything I own. Currently Intel Celeron 533's are clocking to over 850mhz. An AMD CPU with a comparable price will NOT beat a Celeron at that speed - period. IF AMD prevents overclocking then they will simply not be price competitive for my dollar and NOT receive it - simple!
I'll be interested to see how this effects the new ABIT MB. It's supposed to allow multiplier modification in the BIOS and was to be my next purchase. Guess what AMD - ABIT and YOU will not be receiving my money if you've clock locked. For that matter even multiplier locking your CPUs may be enough to turn me away since your CPUs cann apparently not handle FSBs much over about 110mhz.
The "issue" here is that AMD supposedly doesn't want remarked PROCESSORS. If that's really what they're whining about and not overclocked SYSTEMS then their current setup of locking the multiplier but allowing external logic to change it is fine ala ABIT. If they've decided this isn't good enough then this crap about wanting to stop remarkers is just that - crap. For that matter even with a solid multiplier lock you can still overclock with the FSB unless they've locked that too - not likely. So they've not actually stopped overclocked "systems" either.
What EXACTLY is it that AMD is trying to accomplish? Or perhaps Tom is full of crap yet again?
I'm voting with my wallet and so should everyone else. If AMD is going to pull the rug out and change their price\performance ratio against the Celeron then they won't be getting my money nor that of any of the friends I advise on computer purchases...
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
From the mine-runs-hotter-than-yours-does dept.
There is an interesting point that people should start to realize, and it will be a point of education to get them to do so: CPUs do not have a static speed setting.
Believe it or not, it took me several years to get this stamped into my head. What? Overclock? You can do that? Huh.....um...isn't that bad for it? No, and we know that now. It's the amount of people who don't know it that are causing the problems. If the attitude was that every chip can be flexed in terms of speed, the problem would lessen. Then you run monitors to check the CPU speed and protect yourself against having a burnout. Simple. (supposedly)
If you run a chip slower than rated, it lasts longer because it's cooler. If you run it AT rated, it lasts for about its specified lifetime. Run it faster than rated, it'll most likely burn out before its rated lifetime. But then again, in most instances, rated lifetime far exceeds the practical usage of CPUs in the marketplace. So run 'em fast! Sure, they'll burn out, but not likely before you get a new one anyway.
Really, I do see the point that AMD is trying to make. I understand the concern for dork-shops overclocking computers to make that extra buck, and I applaud that effort. However, seems to me that there has to be a better way as opposed to limiting those who want to turbo-charge their CPUs.
Blog,Twitter
If this is the reason, I'd suggest an alternative. Don't impose restrictions on motherboard designs, impose restrictions on vendors. They could make their licensing such that in order to sell AMD products, overclocked systems must be clearly labeled.
Selling an overclocked system that's not labeled could be penalized simply by making the vendor liable for repairs, or by having to pay AMD a crapload of $$.
Poof, no more (especially) unstable systems with the AMD name on them, and no more angry overclockers.
Or am I smoking crack? I'm basing this on the way Smith & Wesson is handling their vendors after the lawsuit, but processors are not handguns.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
Not quite - if they are locking frequencies then what they're probably doing now is bonding out the frequency programming pads when the package the die - what this means is that the robot that solders the tiny wires between the chip carrier and the die wires up different wires depending on whether wafer sort decided that the dies were fast enough ie they decided how fast the die ought to be before they packaged it, not after - most chips get 2 sorts of tests - before and after in order to weed out bad die early - packaging is an expensive step - also all the die on a wafer tend to run at the same speed because they've all received the same processing - sometimes extra circuitry is added to a wafer to allow it to be easily characterised.
What they could do instead is to add an extra set of pins saying what speed they think the chip should run at and make those available in an internal register for the OS to print at boot time. This way you could have overclocking and a CPU that announced how fast its manufacturer thinks it should run.