Slashdot Mirror
Intel Patents Anti-Overclocking Technology
VCAGuy writes "It appears that Intel has pantented a crystal-locking technology to lock processors to the processor's clock speed. The Inquirer has a story about it, and you can read the patent description from the USPTO. Let's hope AMD doesn't try to copy this..."
...it's not in their best interests. The people that they get much of their profits from are overclocking enthusiasts, or at least people who consider the ability to overclock to be a plus. AMD most likely won't follow Intel in this, just like it most likely won't hold back 64-bit.
It's just another reminder that AMD+Linux=Good!
Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
Sure, crystals have been used to lock frequencies forever...but processes are what are generally patented, and the process of locking a processor speed with a crystal (versus locking a signal frequency, or whatever)...is it not new? Can someone explain prior art? Or is this just a case of complaining about any old patent that gets approved at all?
While AMD processors might "crack" when you install the heat sink incorrectly, who has cracked the Intel multiplier lock introduced so long ago? Nobody.
Patenting the technology isn't the same as bringing it to the marketplace, and maybe it's intended for some other purpose, like guaranteeing the reference frequency for some time-sensitive circuitry or radio-transmitter chips or something like that.
But if they're trying to tie the hands of hardware hackers, then Intel is shooting themselves in the foot, and AMD has just got a big win on a forfeit.
When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.
OK, let's just get something out of the way. This is a good patent. It patents a specific method of achieving a technological end. It is directed, nonobvious, and something which would hurt their VALID intellectual property ownings to have given away to their competitors.
This is exactly the point of the patent office--to protect innovative technology. Intel has nothing to be ashamed of for patenting this, dammit.
Now if you don't LIKE the technology they've patented, then don't BUY it! If they put this on future CPUs, don't support them if you don't want. But DON'T WHINGE ABOUT THE PATENT BEING JUNK! It's not.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
... how about underclocking to keep them cool?
I've seen a lot of comments here asking why Intel would do such a thing, why they're trying to prevent overclocking even though it voids the warrantee.
They really aren't concerned so much with enthusiasts... the percentage of people who over clock in the total PC market is very small (they just speak loudly online).
The problem they have is with resellers (ie whitebox shops) taking a slow processor (say a P4 2.0 GHz), overclocking it, and selling it in a system as, say, a P4 2.8 GHz and marking up the price as such. To clarify, these resellers do not tell their customers the system has a P4 2.0 overclocked to 2.8 GHz and that the warrantee is voided, they say it has a P4 2.8 GHz part in it, and pocket the extra cash. So Intel loses money on sales of its higher end parts, and customers aren't getting what they paid for: they end up with an overclocked part that may or may not be completely stable.
He said, "You'll be able to tell your grandchildren that you helped assemble the first NT supercomputer," and I cringed.
First, I'm not making claims this is uncrackable, but you have no problem making claims that not only is it crackable, but it will be cracked, because you're under the delusion that everything has been cracked.
I'm not going to bother making a huge list of things which haven't been cracked, instead I'll give you one: RSA Encryption
RSA isn't uncrackable. It's not designed to be uncrackable. Instead, it's designed in such a way that cracking it will take a VERY VERY long time with today's technology. (Hundreds or thousands of years, depending on the key size?)
RSA will probably be cracked on some level in the future, but it realistically it won't be cracked in this decade or two or five, which is good close enough for most applications.
Maybe this won't be technically uncrackable, but what will one have to go through to crack it? Cracking Hardware isn't like cracking Software.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
You're not making any sense, they're trying to promote the anti-overclocking technology as a _selling_ point, especially to big corporations. They know that most big corps wouldn't overclock the CPU, and they're reasuring them that a third party won't secretly overclock the CPU and then sell it to them.
As the previous poster pointed out, they're marketing to the group they expect to make the most from. They know there are people who like to overclock their CPUs, but that number is fairly small compared to the number of CPUs they sell to corporations, who want assurance of quality.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Unfortunatel, as we hit the high speeds of processors, the performance gains are not justified. I have a Celeron 300 overclocked to 450Mhz. That's a 50% increase in speed. You can (without using liquid nitrogen) not get such an increase on modern hardware. Overclocking was good for the PC industry. I'd be hard pressed to say that it still is. It is a little side-note in the home-pc history, that's it.
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
Your argument against the parent post is correct. However your example is clearly not the same as the technology that the parent refers to.
:-P
I would also put it forward that the parent had no idea what he was talking about though.
When trying to encrypt media in things like DVD's, satelite feeds etc etc etc you need to encrypt the data so that the bad guys can't interrupt it and you need to decrypt it so the legitamate users can read it.
I think this is what the parent post sorta meant. (I don't believe that really)
RSA encryption is not the same thing. If someone gave someone to you encrypted with RSA encryption and also gave you the decryption key it would be cracked. Not the encryption itself but the decryption key can then be compromised. This is the reason that most people today believe it is impossible to safely protect media from copying but still allow it's use.
The Intel thing is different again as I assume (having not RTFA) that the protection would be embedded on the chip. You would need a pretty steady hand to modify something on a CPU at the scale it is fabricated I would guess.
Also, the protection is not trying to protect someone copying data so encryption technologies are not the trick. It is trying to stop you using more CPU cycles per second. I think this could probably be done in a way that is not accessible (price wise) to the average consumer. Let's face it the only reason overclocking is popular at all is because it is free. If it cost much more money you would just buy faster CPU's on day one.