Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel's Anti-Overclocking Technology Simplified

Posted by michael on from the why-johnny-can't-speed dept.

John Thorensen writes "Found a fantastic article on Intel's recent Anti-Overclocking patent at Fastsilicon.com. Worth the read, as it also explains some of the technical and ethical issues of overclocking. Good to see that some tech journalists can still write material understandable by an average person."

3 of 319 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Ethics of Overclocking? by Limburgher · · Score: 4, Informative
    RTFA. Not the ethics of OC'ing in general i.e. your hardware by you, but the ethics of vendor OC'ing, i.e. your hardware by the sleazebag who's selling you a processor that is A) inviolation of the warranty B) likely to damage itself and c) therefore likely to wipe out your data with no recourse for you.

    Otherwise, I agree with you.

    --

    You are not the customer.

  2. The article is wrong by Hannibal_Ars · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't think that the author of this article actually understands the patent in question. Specifically, the reference signal is absolutely not generated on the CPU die, as the author claims. Intel's new scheme is still dependent on the chipset's cooperation.

    Anyway, I won't go into anymore detail here, because I explain the patent and its implications for overclocking in the following Ars news post:

    http://arstechnica.com/archive/news/1048630320.h tm l

    --
    Senior CPU Editor | Ars Technica | http://arstechnica.com/
  3. Fastsilicon.com by fastsilicon · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is Nigel, the owner of fastsilicon.com. As you probably already know, we are having some issues with our server at the moment. Thanks for your support. Now, focusing on the article... "I don't think that the author of this article actually understands the patent in question" This article was not written for the "l33t geek", but for the average "user" to understand. We have simplified many of the more technical terms. And yes, we fully understand what were talking about :) I appreciate all your feedback.