Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Patents Anti-Overclocking Technology

Posted by timothy on from the as-fast-as-we-say-it-is dept.

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..."

8 of 584 comments (clear)

  1. AMD Won't... by C0LDFusion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.
    1. Re:AMD Won't... by bartman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The funny thing is, that if AMD even wanted to stop people from overclocking using this patented technology, they would have to pay royalties to Intel. So as a result AMD will probably not follow that route and the consummer wins!

      AMD+Linux=Good in deed.

      --
      -- bartman
  2. so? by dAzED1 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I am *totally* with the anti-pantent bloat movement. But...what's the complaint on this one? That the technology is being used, or that its being patented? If its that its being used...wah. If its that its being patented - can someone explain why it isn't a valid patent?

    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?

    1. Re:so? by greenrom · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You shouldn't be able to patent processes that are obvious given current prior art. If you look at the diagram in the article, what's being proposed isn't anything particularly unique or new.

      According to the diagram, it looks like they use an input clock to drive a counter. Then, after a set number of cycles of the internal crystal oscillator, you look at the value of the counter. If it's above a certain number, you know the input clock is too fast (somebody is overclocking it).

      This is EXACTLY how a frequency counter works. Only frequency counters do some extra math so they can display the frequency in Hz or MHz, or whatever is appropriate. This is a simpler case because you're only concerned with crossing a set threshold.

      So really, what you have is a patent for a design that has been around as long as crystals and flip-flops existed. The only thing that's really new here is that they're using it to prevent people from overclocking their processors. In my opinion, you shouldn't be able to get a patent for that. But what do I know? I didn't think Amazon should have been able to patent a one-click checkout even if they were the first ones to do it.

  3. This is a GOOD PATENT!!! by swordgeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  4. It's About Fighting Resellers by zealot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  5. Re:yay, overclocking locks... by Daetrin · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What idiot on a corporate IT team would overclock a CPU? Not many worth their paycheck, that's for sure. At least not while it has any value on the books.

    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
  6. Keeping the key with the lock by muzzmac · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your argument against the parent post is correct. However your example is clearly not the same as the technology that the parent refers to.

    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. :-P

    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.