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..."
everything released as of yet has been cracked
I knew I should have patented my anti-anti-oveclocking technology some years ago...
Just another way to ruin the life of the geek. Go Intel, make your chips even less appealing. /me pokes his Athlon XP
It's only a matter of time before the overclockers find a way around this. Intel will likely have some kind of undocumented override in place to make it easier, even.
This is the real signature
(Beats those shadows on the cave wall, don't it?)
This reminds me alot like a form of DRM, you buy the chip, but Intel tells you what you can and can't do with it, which type of motherboard you're allowed to use it in maybe? Who the hell knows anymore...
Posting useless rant since 2003.
i stopped trying to over clock my processor when i blew up a perfectly fine Pentium II 233 when i tried to get it to run at 266.. it worked for a month and then never worked again.. *sniffle* So now unless i have a spare processor lying around i don't risk it.
...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.
this will fall by the wayside, but what logic prompts this kind of thing ??? EVERYONE already knows if you mess with the multiplier and OC hardware you ash the warranty on the spot. Does Intel feel the need to do this for legal protection or is it a precursor to somthing darker... ****sinister chuckle****
AMD has been my CPU of choice for quite sometime, I just really hope they keep up the good work.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I really really want to underclock my cpus to hardware emulate old machines.
now if i can get a p4 down to 8mhz and in 286 mode
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.
I'm heading to my local patent office to patent my right to not buy Intel processors.
Yes they can if they license the patent.
Transcript show: self sigs atRandom.
Instead of someone buying a 2.4GHz processor, for example, they'll get a 1.8 and overclock it to 2.4 (or whatever the exact numbers are). Basically Intel is wanting to ensure people buy the more expensive processor instead of overclocking a cheaper one. But what percentage of people actually overclock? 0.1%?
According to the block diagram, they compare the (divided down) system clock with a 32.768KHz reference crystal. I'm thinking they can't put the ref crystal on the CPU die, and if it's external it can be replaced with a slightly (or grossly) faster one.
You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
Why the hell would you take the time and bother to do this?
Intel does this mainly because in the past there have been retailers sell a slower chip that has been overclocked as a faster chip. This gives some consumers a lower quality chip than they paid for. It can give alot of bad PR for the company if when someone's processor has problems (which may not be very obvious). A few problems can cause alot of people to be skeptical about buying intel or not (whether or not their fears are justified). The solution is just lock everything into the speed that they are actually advertising. Like it or not, overclocker's are a very small portion of their market and so they can allow a small portion of people to be angry while most of their customers are happy.
It's a fairly simple system. You stick an oscillator of known frequency (32.768 kHz in this case) on the chip, and then use that to count the inputed clock rate.
If you count too many clock pules to each refference pulse, then you can modify behaviour on the basis of that. I's interesting to note that the patent talks about CPU's going as fast as 500 MHz, and talks about 1995 as recent. So all the talk about dodgy resellers was probably topical way back when it was written, when, if I recall, there were a few resellers overclocking chips on the quiet. I think that this is a patent whose time has come and gone.
More worrying, it talks about under-clocking detection, as if it's a symptom of faulty hardware. Well, my recent brush with a failed fan ment I underclocked my CPU, to alow it to function without overheating - I sincearly hope that Intel doesn't intend to prevent that.
It's official, " Intel owns the patent on stupidity "?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
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
The only good thing Intel could announce about this technology is that they're trying to protect the consumers from frying their CPU's while doing something they may not have the expertise to do.
Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
Well, there are a few issues.
1). Resellers that act with very limited warranty that sell overclocked machines. The machine fails, Intel's reputation suffers. Intel wants to prevent this.
2). People who overclock and then send in the CPU for a replacement for free.
Presumably, Intel will still sell CPUs without this protection on a no-warranty basis so people can overclock if they like, and Intel loses neither money nor reputation.
If I want to spend my hard earned money to purchase a CPU that I wish to overclock and eke out a modest performance increase, then I should be able to OC it without marketing intervention.
If I chose to void my warranty by overclocking my CPU, then that too is my choice. Rather than limiting the speed of the CPU, why not put a one-time flashable register in the CPU that is set when a CPU is run above its intended speed for X amount of time, thus proving that a warranty is void.
By putting a frequency/speed limiter into a CPUs construction, Intel could then make generically speedy CPU and throttle it back and offer a 'value' CPU, and subsequently inflate the cost of less throttled CPUs. Remember back to the 486DX/SX days where they disabled the math co-processor in a 486DX and sold them as 'value' 486SX processors?
Good idea. Perhaps there's prior art, but I don't think the patent itself is an issue (or at least there are much worse patents in the world to gripe over).
As for overclocking, the diagram just shows a signal going out that latches when the chip is overclocked. What a processor DOES with it is an entirely other story. A cool extension would be a pin to a motherboard, and allowing the BIOS to actually give a big "HEY, I'M OVERCLOCKED" message on startup. Those who get reseller-overclocked chips (and it happens!) know they've been shafted. Those who are overclockers know they're cool (well... quite hot actually... nevermind).
At least I'd HOPE they'd put some way around it for those truly interested in overclocking.
with this technology inplace, Intel will be able to prosecute OC'ers under the DMCA, similar to the recent Lexmark case, where Lexmark sued a company for providing mod chips that allowed replacement toners to be used other than the ones made by lexmark. the whole story can be found at http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,57866,00 .html
IMHO this is a good thing. If both Intel and AMD cpus are completely overclock-proof this will lead to people having to buy the higher-clocked cpus, which lead to more money being pumped into the two cpu giants. What does that lead to? Eventually a better, more stable technology economy. If you really want to keep overclocking, you could always go to VIA and Transmeta chips. I'm fairly sure that they won't follow suit and keep their cpus clear of anti-overclocking facilities.
><));>
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
From the patent: "Unscrupulous resellers and/or distributors may purchase less expensive processors that are rated at lower clock frequencies and then remark those processor at higher clock frequencies, a procedure known as over-clocking. "
Phew! I thought that they were onto us price aware hackers at home.
(This sig intentionally left blank)
Also, the invention is implemented in the chipsets, not the CPU.
The usual FUD is misplaced then. If Intel is using this technology, they've been using it for as much as 3.5 years.
My next computer purchase for a linux box, I plan to get a mid-range chip, then underclock it a few notches as to reduce it's operating temperature and thus extend the reliability of the chip. I don't want to spend a fortune and worry my hair out over whether my CPU is running too hot or not. While I can understand Intel's concern with resellers of their CPUs falsing advertizing faster chips but in reality selling overclocked ones, I hope Intel realizes that it's better to allow consumers to be able to over/underclock the CPU, and instead pursue legal actions against resellers that fake CPU speeds, instead of going for an overpreventative hardware solution.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
People who overclock their CPU and then send in the CPU for free replacement ? How many people actually TRY to pull that stunt ? Are you nuts ? You think they can't spot some out-of-warranty shennanigans going on ? ( Unless the techs are in serious need of sleep so they can be alert enough to spot things like that. )
Let me clue you in on something spud-boy, Intel doesn't make it's core money from selling CPU's...are you high ? They make their money from licensing technologies AROUND their CPU's. They also make it from embedded systems and other related technologies that spring from the well that is their CPU business.
This patent, and any ploy ( and it IS a ploy ) like it is a move for one thing...money. Period.
What ? You think if you buy that nice little sports car at the dealer and put a supercharger and a NO2 system on that little DOHC 4-cylinder, and blow your rings doing a little drag. And then try putting the engine back as it was, and take it back to the dealer, that the mechanic isn't going to look at it and say, "So, I take it you didn't win your little drag race, huh ? Sorry buddy, out of warranty". Sig: Get in touch with reality, don't bite ME. Bite yourself.
Current pentiums are hot; future ones will be volcanic. Overclocking the chip of the near future will lead to a plasma that will destroy the world as we no it. So, be glad Intel is looking out for you! -Iowa
"He who laughs last, didn't get the joke."-Cap
Read the patent. It was filed in 1999, back when the problem was occurring.
Sheesh! They'll be trying to patent the AND gate next.
--- Ban humanity.
Assuming that they care about that in the first place, one wonders whether they put any of what must have been considerable effort into finding a win-win solution. It seems (to my unknowledgable mind) that it wouldn't be difficult to build in an overclocking "fuse" (most likely logic, not an actual fusible link) to record seriously out of spec voltages or temps or clock rates. Overclock as you please, but the instant the "fuse" pops, your warranty is void. It seems as though something like this might actually be simpler than continually re-engineering the chip to defeat the latest OC hack.
Assuming they care in the first place.
Life is like surrealism: if you have to have it explained to you, you can't afford it.
While it was not used correctly in the original sentence, it IS a word.
Yeah, I know, shameless Karma Whore but what the hell.
If VISTA is the answer, you didn't understand the question
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.
I think they worry more about potential (& for companies like Intel potential is profit) lost profit.
It's very simple from Intel's POV: High Mhz CPU's cost more, thus making the company more money per CPU. Intel has been hurting profit-wise due to lowering their astronomical prices on CPU's/ Intel needs those astronical prices on CPU's to support it's bloated self. Overclocking lets people buy cheaper CPU's & OC them to the level of higher CPU's cutting into Intel's profits. So bloacking OC = Increase in profits.
Intel knows that they have the marketing clot to avoid any real damage to their rep from this. Heck they've managed to make most of the world think they need a "Intel Inside" CPU for years... Worse yet most people (aka most non-technical people) don't realize their are other companies that make CPU's due to Intel advertising. So they loose a few people to AMD as they were just into for the OCing, oh well they gain larger profits from making those people who stay with Intel pay more...
It's not like thsi is the frist time they've tried to limit overclocking...
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise