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..."
I knew I should have patented my anti-anti-oveclocking technology some years ago...
...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?
I'm heading to my local patent office to patent my right to not buy Intel processors.
If a 19 year old raver goes in to a mercedes dealership and buys a car, they don't turn him down. That doesn't mean they'll start marketting towards 19 year old ravers, though. Its about who they can sell the most to, at the higher price.
And I tell you, AMD has always had a heat issue, and still does. Heat will more and more be a really big deal with smaller and smaller things, too. I buy AMD when I feel generous, just to help the underdog. But of all the systems I have, the intel systems are FAR more stable.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.