Slashdot Mirror
Intel's Anti-Overclocking Technology Simplified
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."
This article is a fabrication. The technology remains complicated as ever. Victory by our glorious forces over the AMD infidels is imminent.
Former Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf
Beware - soon we will find people who sell overclocking devices going to jail for violating DMCA.
(yes, I forgot my password here.. again lol)
-Honestman
Article came up fine for me. Maybe you need to overclock your monitor.
"And this is my boy, Sherman. Speak, Sherman." "Hello." "Good boy."
CPU Speed Trap:
The abstract of the Intel patent reads as follows:
An over-clock deterrent mechanism of a chipset which comprises an over-clock detection circuit for detecting over-clocking of a system (processor) clock signal based on comparison of ratio of the system (processor) clock signal which is likely to be over-clocked and a fixed, stable reference clock signal which is highly unlikely to be over-clocked, and an over-clock prevention (thwarting) circuit for deterring such an over-clocking by either disabling operations of a computer system or significantly undermining key operations of a computer system.
Unlike the rest of the patent description, this is comparitively easy to understand. An Intel scientist invented a way to keep a microprocessor running at a specified clock speed by comparing it to a reference clock. Further, the patent details ways of acting upon an out-of-spec clock speed, all of which involve slowing the processor down in one way or another.
To explain the base technology that enables this CPU speed trap, we need to look no further than our television sets. Specifically, a television set tuned to TNN on Sunday afternoon. For those that haven't a clue what I'm talking about, check out TNN on Sunday sometime. For those that do know what I'm talking about, you probably still don't get what microprocessors have to do with NASCAR racing. Lucky for you, this curious metaphor is easily explained.
Imagine a racecar doing laps around a superspeedway of known length - say 1 mile. Then, imagine that I ask you to figure out how fast the racecar is going, but there are no radar guns around. How would you do it? The easiest way to determine the racecar's speed would be to count the number of times it goes around the track in one hour and since each lap is 1 mile, this would give us the answer in miles per hour. Pretty simple, isn't it?
Now imagine that we are on another track, of an unknown length. I again ask you to determine the racecar's speed. In this case, the best you could come up with would be a wild guess, because we no longer know the length of one lap. So, we decide that we'll settle for knowing if the racecar is going fast enough to beat an (until now unmentioned) opponent.
We have two cars, both running around the track. We're not running an actual race, so we're not looking for the first to cross the finish line. Rather, we're interested in one thing: whether or not our racecar is going fast enough to beat the other one. To figure this out, we go back to our solution to the first problem. By counting now many times each racecar goes around the track in a specified time period, we know if our racecar is going fast enough to beat the other one. If our racecar goes around the track more times during a fixed time period it's going faster than the opponent's; if it goes around the track fewer times it's going slower. If they go around the track EXACTLY the same number of times, then they're going the same speed and there will be a tie.
If you've followed along to this point, then you understand the technique that Intel is using to determine whether or not a processor is running at a clock speed other than that specified. In our racing metaphor, one lap is equivalent to a clock pulse. We can determine whether the device that generates the clock pulses (our racecar) is going faster than a known reference that is set at the processor's specified clock speed (the opponent's racecar) by counting the number of pulses from each over a fixed time period and comparing them. If we count more pulses for the system clock than the reference (in terms of our metaphor, our racecar is winning), then the system is overclocked. If we count fewer pulses (our racecar is losing), then we are "underclocked". If we count exactly the same number of pulses, there will be a "tie" and we know that both clocks are running at the same rate. Because the reference is actually a part of the processor, it theoretically cannot be tampered with and therefore the processor is running at its specified speed.
I hope you die painfully and alone.
Error 502
;)
Remote server down or not responding.
Looks like Fastsilicon.com isn't that fast
Maybe you should educate the morons of tomorrow so they'll stop believing the leaders of tomorrow. - Dogbert
Penalties for Speeding:
Having solved the first part of the clock-limiting issue, the Intel patent further describes ways to act upon the fact that the processor is overclocked. There are two methods that are described to thwart overclocking once it is detected. The first method simply shuts off power to the processor when an illegal clock speed is detected. This is the equivalent of being thrown in jail: "Do not pass go, do not collect $200". When the power is removed from the processor, the only computing you're likely do get done is on your desk calculator.
The second method proposed utilizes a clock-limiting device already included in Intel's CPU designs. Most modern CPUs include a "thermal control logic device", which is essentially like the thermostat in your house. When the device detects temperatures that are significantly higher than normal, it tells the CPU to slow way down so that it will not generate as much heat. Normally, it takes a significant amount of heat to trigger this response; usually only a fan failure or a missing heatsink can cause temperatures to soar so high. Intel's patent describes a small addition to this device that allows the overclock detection circuit to initiate the same sort of clock-limiting behavior. In such a situation, overclocking turns out to be a losing proposition, because if the processor is overclocked the detection and thwarting system will actually make it run more slowly than if it were running at the normal specified clock speed. If you still don't quite understand how this works, imagine that you get pulled over for speeding. After writing you a ticket, the police officer deflates all 4 of your tires. In such a situation, you might get somewhere, but you're not going to get there very fast until you reinflate your tires. This is what the thermal control logic does; by "deflating the tires" of the CPU, it forces it to slow down until the improper clock speed is corrected.
Summary:
Depending on the specific implementation, Intel's patent is likely to be fairly successful in limiting clock speeds to those specified. Because it does not rely on any external devices, it will be more difficult for users to tamper with. This is not to say that it will be impossible to circumvent, but it is likely that if implemented, the device would be much more resistant to such efforts than any clock-locking method to date. Despite the doom and gloom cries from hobbyist overclockers, clock-locking is not necessarily all bad news. The issue of CPU remarking by systems integrators is a real problem, and is not likely to go away as long as processors can be overclocked. Additionally, addressing this issue is a good thing for the industry because there would be a reduction in returns of "defective" processors that failed due to overclocking. This would reduce costs, and in turn prices. There is also the added benefit that inadvertent mis-clocking due to motherboard failure can be detected and remedied by the user. Undoubtedly the inability to overclock would be a disappointment to many, but in the long run it could be a benefit for all concerned. It is also important to remember that, "in the war between weapons and armor, weapons eventually win", meaning that it is only a matter of time until even the unbreakable is broken. After all, it wouldn't be overclocking without a challenge.
I hope you die painfully and alone.
Now if they could incorporate and Anti-AMD-processor -that-is-faster-for-less-money technology, they'd be all set!
Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
1. Detect servers with overclocked processors 2. Post link to slashdot 3. Processor is fried :)
Seriously, wtf? Ethics should be something applied to lawyers, doctors, mechanics, etc.. not something that should be brought up when a kid (or adult i guess) is tweeking his hardware. The fact that overclocking voids any warranty should be enough of a precaution by manufacturers.
they're trying to keep power-users from overclocking, justifying it by the fact that some "evil systems builders" buy cheaper processors and overclock them, selling them to YOUR mom unknowingly, who then calls you at 2am when her computer catches on fire from all the heat.
Son! I was just playing online scrabble and chatting on AOL when my computer started to melt! Did I break the internet???
--Less Thinkin', More Drinkin'...
What ethical issues are there relating to overclocking? Overclocking a chip, and selling it at a higher speed is already called "fraud". There's nothing ethical or unethical about overclocking. Is redlining your car's engine unethical? Stupid maybe, but that's about it...
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Personally, I'd like to be able to underclock better so it would be easier to built a really quiet PC. Although there are a few articles about it, silent PCs are an underserved area of the market.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
..we discuss the ethical implications of using your teabags twice instead of once, and we explore the high-tech solutions to this problem, and the clear connection to terrorism.
I hate overclocking. Now I can't accidentally do it.
YOU RULE INTEL!
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Writing material which is readable to the average tech-interested
layperson is easy. Doing that while avoiding insipidity and
simplification to the point of being misleading.... ummm....
priceless?
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
This technique is nothing more than embedding an oscillator on-chip, and using that to monitor the main clock.
Since most CPUs internally multiply their clock (you don't feed a 3.0 GHz P4 a 3.0 GHz clock, you feed it a much slower clock and it multiplies it up), why then don't manufacturer's just use an embedded clock and do away with all this?
Simple - it is very hard to have an accurate clock embedded in the CPU. External clocks can use a quartz crystal to vibrate and make the clock - an embedded oscillator would have to use an on-chip delay line or RC network, which will drift over time, temperature, and voltage.
So all they can do with a system like this is catch you if you are overclocking by a fairly large amount - were they to try to trap you at a 10% overclock they would have false trips due to process variation.
To extend the analogy the article used: you will get a speeding ticket if you are going 20 over the speed limit. Keep it less than 10 over and you will be fine.
NOTE: this is not advice condoning overclocking or speeding! This is just an analysis of the technology involved.
www.eFax.com are spammers
I though it was my property and i could do whatever i wanted with it. Soon we'll be hearing: licenced not owned?
I think it's worth it to point out that the article stated that there are ethical issues only when a vendor sells a comptuer that is overclocked without alerting the consumer.
If this has been a problem, I agree with Intel that it's important to restrict overclocking to protect, not limit, the consumer.
If vendors are only rarely (or never) overclocking a CPU and selling it for for more then I think that while it's probably not a wise business decision by Intel to implement such a technology just to limit consumers, it is Intel's right as the manufacturer and there is nothing ethically wrong with it. There is still competition and the market will speak for itself.
No one is forcing you to buy Intel products after all.
That's the component that keeps breaking. Intel does not give one nuclear frog fuck about the life of their processors. They care about one and only one thing - the money they can extort out of you on the next upgrade.
All chips are baked to a manufacturing tolerance that allows them to run at any given speed. Each new batch is tested and if more than some number predictably run at a given speed then that is what they are rated. As their manufacturing process imporves with each turn of the Deeming crank then the rated speed goes up. But when you push more power through the chip to make it run faster it superceeds it's own manufacturing tolerances. It would be like putting a 767 in transonic dive. It might hold together but Boeing thinks that's pretty much your issue.
But Intel doesn't make airplanes they make CPUs and their revenue comes from locking you into THEIR upgrade path. Break that relationship and they will hose you.
Imagine that, YOU are paying the embedded costs for them to find a clever way to stop YOU from speeding up YOUR chip.
Let's start overclocking, enhancing, and reverse engineering EVERYTHING to protest these laws.
Preventing overclocking is just corportate bs. Remember the liminal messaging of Brave New World, "I'm tired of old things. I want new things. If it's broken, don't fix it. Throw old things away."
In all honesty, people probably break as many chips as they enhance and overclocking helps profits for chip makers. Anyways, you can use this code, compared against the time/date clock to determine if a chip is overclocked. Software/electronic patents are a bunch of bullcrap for things like this because it's so damn simple to recreate the effect.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
....is to buy an AMD. For the money you save you can go buy other goodies for your machine.
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.
h tm l
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.
Senior CPU Editor | Ars Technica | http://arstechnica.com/
I was actually thinking about building a P4 box for my next main machine and looking forward to the quiet whirr of a stock Intel heatsink. After 3 years of Delta Fans on Athys, I thought a P4 was a great idea for silence and overclocking. And what does Intel do? They bend all the OCers over and kick us squarely in the nuts.
I have an older technology that fits nicely alongside Intels anti-overclocking technology, it's proprietary and only works with geeks, OCers and effects all systems we build, its called anti-Intel-purchasing technology and I suggest we all use it religiously.
If overclocking your poor processor to its death is ethical, then so is driving your herd of sheep off a cliff, or nailing your dog's feet to the floor so you can use it as a doorstop.
And those people who post a link to slashdot without providing a mirror or cache just so they can watch some innocent, defenseless server get turned into a smoking carbon shell are no better.
You know, IC's and other silicon-die based products have rights as well.
This has been a PSA from FETS (Fanatics for the Ethical Treatment of Silicon)
pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory7
force licencers of the newer computer busses to include some sort of anti-overclock mechinism directly on the bridge chips on the MB itself (since the article says the clock speed isn't controlled by the processor, I'm assuming that's where it's done)
Sure, it's facist, but it seems cheaper and a bit simpler.
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
The money and expense it takes to over clock a cpu usually costs more than just buying a more expensive processor. There isn't much difference from a 2.5 Ghz and 3 Ghz processor technically, but the price reduction in return for the minimal performance is huge!
Spend money working on other bottlenecks, such as more ram, a better graphics card and faster hard drives.
The anti overclocking mechanisms are there to stop people from accidentaly setting the wrong settings in the bios and therefore voiding their warranty
For a while now, Asus has had the bad habit of tweaking their FSB slightly out-of-spec, for example a 135 MHz FSB instead of 133. Although only a slight overclock, this can easily lead to speed increase of 100 MHz on the (currently) high-spec processors. If Intel were to tweak their overclock-detection to such a point that it can even detect minor increases, I'll be curious what happens to Asus...
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
The article mentions that this would protect against a vendor who sells overclocked CPUs as if they were originally made to run at that speed. But I don't think this is the only reason. They surely want to stop people from overclocking so that they buy a faster CPU instead.
I think if the only point of this was preventing vendor overclock it could be done much easier: Make the CPU tell the motherboard what frequency it was supposed to run at. Then when you start the computer the BIOS would perform a simple check and show a message like "Intel Pentium 4 at 3.5 GHz (OVERCLOCKED! Should be 3 GHz)".
Nobody who intentionally overclocks his/her system would care much about having this banner, it's even a way of bragging about how much you overclocked your CPU. But it should be effective for avoiding vendor overclock.
I think he was refering to the Slashdot page, not the article.
He was saying that he could not read the comments (here) so that it was forcing people (slashdot reader) to read the linked article.
I'd rather be sailing...
sell 2 chips, the OEM locked version and the stand alone overclockable version. overclockers happy, OEM consumers not getting ripped off
... An over-clock deterrent mechanism of a chipset which comprises an over-clock detection circuit for detecting over-clocking of a system ... and an over-clock prevention (thwarting) circuit.
Okay, to implement this, they're including a reference clock on the chip, which means that processors of different (marketed) speeds will have to be made with a different process (which has maybe been true for a long time, but I was lead to believe that, eg in the pIII days, the wafers that failed 1Ghz just got sold as 833MHz, etc).
So instead of doing all these calculations to decide if you're "speeding," and then doing even *more* calculations to penalize you, why don't they just expose this reference clock speed in a special interrupt call? And maybe even the relation to the operating speed (eg, "you are overclocked by 10%")? Then, they could release an app that would tell you how fast your computer was SUPPOSED to be, and how fast it IS.
Then, OC'ers could have their cake, and no one else could be taken advantage of by unscrupulous OEMs who overclock to bump up their margins. I concede the point that "most average people will never check anyway," but just having the information *available* should protect Intel from liability, which seems to be the essential idea. Plus, the threat of having the practice exposed at any time should stop at least some of the overclock-resellers.
I get sick and tired of all these hardware nerdz acting like they're electrical engineers (which I happen to be). The out of a flop, thru a logic cloud and into the next flop is determined by 1) the output resistance of each logic gate, and 2) the capacitance (load) that is driven. The output resistance of a fet goes up when temperature goes up. This is why cooling your processor allows it run faster. However, there is a limit. No matter how much you cool your proc, it'll never go to 0 resistance. The amount of heat produced by your proc doesn't determine the speed bin it went into. The "fastness" of the batch of wafers that die was cut from determines the speed bin. Fet threshold voltages drift from wafer to wafer (and die to die within a wafer). Higher thresholds = slower fets. Heat is proportional to Capacitance*Voltage^2*Frequency. Note that fet resistance isn't in that equation.
Um, maybe this is a dumb question.....
But of the overclockers out there, those of you that have built the ultimate gaming machines, etc....
Aren't you using AMD?
I admit, every PC I own has an intel processor.... and I haven't overclocked a PC in, oh, 10 years or so - the last time I "built" my own machine (I got tired of doing it, I just buy them off the shelf now)
I was kind of under the impression that most people who are building their own machines these days, and intend to overclock, use AMD processors anyway.
Is that not the case? It's a genuine question, out of curiosity, how many of you are actually overclocking Intel vs AMD?
If it is really meant to protect the consumer, and not to forbid overclocking all together,
they could always team up with the BIOS maker (just like for the temperature logic)
And just write a big fat: "THIS CPU IS MEANT TO RUN AT X SPEED AND IS CURRENTLY RUNNING AT Y SPEED. YOUR GARANTY MAY BE VOID..."
I'd rather be sailing...
Ok, maybe I just don't get it.
If they can generate this "comparison pulse" inside the chip without relying on the main board's clock signal, why can't they just use that to run the chip? Why bother with using the external source and doing a whole comparison operation?
Because then the unscrupulous would just hack that message out of the BIOS.
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
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.
This argument has gone around at least twice. The Pentium 75MHz was the first clock limited Intel cpu. If overclocked more than 5MHz or so it would just halt. This was not an overclocking crash, a literal halt of the cpu. When Intel started locking the multiplier on the P-IIIs, they cited the need to prevent people from selling overclocked systems. The suggested alternative was to place a speed identification in the processor just like the processor serial number they had just put into the P-III so people could use a utility to check the actual sold-as-speed against the running clockrate.
Intel balked at this. The only reason they would balk at that suggestion was because it didn't address their real concern. Their real concern is limiting you to a set level of performance that you pay for. It dosen't matter if you want to take a chance on a crash or invest in better cooling, they intend to control what you can do with the product.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
On the cheap motherboards, the bios messages would probably look just about like that. For more, visit engrish.com.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
Many may ask at this point, "If the processor does more work with higher clock speeds, why are there limitations on the clock speed - why can't one run a processor as fast as they want?". Although there are many factors that contribute to the answer to this question, the basic answer to this is heat. With every clock pulse, electricity flows through the processor. Because of resistance in the processor's pathways (think of it as a sort of electrical friction), some of this energy is converted to heat, similar to what happens when you rub your hands together very quickly. The higher the clock speed, the more often the clock pulses come, which means that more heat is generated at higher clock speeds. Because processors don't react well to the effects of this heat, testing is done to determine the maximum clock speed that they can run at safely.
That is not really accurate. While it is true that power and clock speed are approxmately linearly related (double the clock speed, double the heat output), the way the article explains the max speed is wrong. This implies that if you took a 2ghz P4 and clocked it at 2.4ghz, it would run hotter than a "real" 2.4ghz P4. This is not the case. All P4s will put out the same amount of heat at a given clock speed.
The actual reason that chips clock at different speeds has to do with precision of manufacture. I'm not really a car person, but I would imagine that better quality parts would let an engine go faster. If a spark plug has a problem, you might get misfires at higher RPMs (?). When a CPU is made, sometimes some of the wires are too thin, and because of the higher resistance it takes more time for enough charge to flow through the wire to get a 1 to change to a 0 (or vice versa). Now, you cannot clock it as fast or the CPU will produce erroneous results.
Another possible defect would be two wires ending up too close to each other. The faster a wire changes voltage, the more interference it creates in wires nearby. With the two wires closer than expected, they might start to experience "crosstalk", where the signal on one of the wires is affected by the other wire. At lower speeds, crosstalk is less of a problem.
There are many more things that cause variations in the max stable speeds of processors, but I won't go into them.
You might next ask, "What about the 'perfect' chips? Why can't they go faster?". The answer to that question is that even the best transistors can only switch so fast, and an electrical signal can only travel so far in a given period of time. When you're working with frequencies in the GHz, light can travel no more than a few feet, and the speed of electricity in wires is much lower.
The processors are then labeled with this clock speed, and they go out the door with a designation such as, "Pentium 4 - 2.4GHz". In this particular case, Intel has tested the processor and has determined that to run properly, it needs a clock that runs no faster than 2.4 billion times per second
The reason you can overclock is that Intel's tests are brutal. If they sell a processor as 2GHz and someone builds a computer with poor case ventilation and a cheap heatsink and low quality power supply in the sahara desert, the computer needs to be stable. Processors can run faster at lower temperatures (there are some equations describing the effects of temperature on various parts and generally higher temperature slows things down), so in a properly ventilated case with a good heatsink (and reliable power supply), the processor can operate reliably at higher-than-rated speeds.
It is important to note that just increasing the clock speed won't have as drastic of an effect on processor lifetime as many people say. What WILL have serious effects, though, is increasing the voltage. Why do overclockers like to raise the core voltage? More voltage means more current and stronger signals. In the thin wire scenario above, more voltage and more current means that even with the higher resistance,
My server
First off, I can't see why overclocking seems to work Intel's panties into such a froth. Overclocking a processor is no different then 'hot rodding' a car! Hobbyists take delight in getting those few extra horsepower out of something, whether it be a CPU or a Hemi. Bragging rights are also involved. Yet you don't see the car companies patenting devices that inhibit an engine's horsepower output. They see it as a tribute to their engineering designs that people can do this- and rightly so. Now comes along Intel -the spoiler- who pulls a hissy fit everytime someone even MENTIONS overclocking! Yes, I agree that remarking chips and selling them is wrong, but there are laws in place to deal with this. They're called fraud laws and they've worked quite well for decades! Frankly, I think that AMD has a MUCH more reasonable approach to overclocking...they make it possible -yet very obvious visually- when someone overclocks their CPU's. GROW UP INTEL...take the fact that you make great products that hobbyists love to: 'push the enevlope on' as a source of pride, instead of having a tantrum over it!
Erm, parasitic capacitance is inherent in silicon, it's not produced by bad etching. The reason people talk about parasitic cap so much these days is that it has come to dominate the delay equation for logic paths. This equation basically says (Sum of gate delays + Sum of wire delays + Required Setup Time + Clock Skew = Fastest cycle time).
As technology shrinks (0.25um -> 0.18um -> 0.13um, etc), the gate delay essentially goes to 0 (not exactly, but I'll simplify). The wire delay keeps getting larger and larger. Why? Because as the geometry decreases the width (and spacing) of the wires decreases. Unfortunately the height of the wires is mostly unchanged. As the width and spacing go down the height effect starts to dominate.
Picture the diffence between two skyscrapers in a downtown city block, and two suburban estates on 2-acre plots of land. The suburbs are the older process technologies, aspect ratios are around 1:1, and very far apart. The skyscraper has 10:1 or higher aspect ratio and the spacing is far less than the height. As the previous poster points out, the capacitance depends on the surface and thickness of the layer. It also depends on the area. The two skyscrapers can "see" a lot more of each other -- this causes the parasitic cap to go up, a lot.
Bad etching can make this worse, but in a well-controlled manfacturing process this variation is on the order of +/-10-20%. Really bad problems are due to actual defects (tiny bits of dust) that cause shorts or opens in the circuits, and then the part just fails completely.
We will sell you one 2 Ghz processor. But it will only be activated @ 500 MHz. You want it to run faster? mmmmmm well pal, you'll have to pay us $50. How it will be activated? send us the money, we'll send you a password. Oh naughty boy!, don't try to get this password at those ugly hacker sites. The password is wired to a serial number inside the processor. What, you want 2 Ghz? sorry, the $50 I was talking about was for 1 Ghz. For 2 GHz is $80. Oh, by the way, that is just the 1 yr fee. At the end of the period your processor will go back to 500 Mhz. But don't worry, you know where to reach us! Think about it this way: we love so much to increase the speed of your CPU that we will do it regularly!! In a way, we are liberating your CPU. (I love that word, you can use it for almost anything these days). Thanks for shopping Intel!
Step 1: Disable overclocking
Step 2: ???
Step 3: PROFIT!
bullshit. If they're doing this on purpose to make it hard to break, they're not going to connect some pins you can short to turn it off, or it would defeat the purpose of it (stopping vendors from selling fake O/Ced systems). This would be implemented inside the CPU, so you'd have to crack open the plastic case, at the very least. If they can implement their timer and pulse-counter on the same silicon as the rest of the CPU, you'd have to hack the silicon in a clean-room. That's nice for people with access to a high-quality clean-room (and something to hack silicon with!), but most people would buy a brand-new Alpha workstation instead of buying the gear it would take to even _try_ to O/C such a CPU. (An on-chip implementation would need a high-frequency oscillator, but you can't make inductors in an IC. They'd probably have some sort of laser-trimmed RC oscillator if they did it all on chip.) Even if there were some off-chip components, like a quartz oscillator to provide a reference frequency (they could use a standard freq, and multiply it on chip according to the rated clock speed, which could be burned into a specially prepared area with a laser or something), you'd have to crack open the CPU, which might be mechanically very difficult to do without damaging the silicon, esp. if Intel wanted that to be the case. You could then replace the reference quartz crystal with a faster one. (As long as underclocking was allowed, you could use crystal twice as fast, and then you wouldn't have to replace it every time you wanted to try a different speed.)
:) (and where overclockability is pretty well tested for that kind of CPU), and even then only by a little bit.
Anyway, the issue here isn't whether O/C'ing is still possible, it's whether it's worth it. If you're more likely to destroy the CPU (while trying to "unlock" it, or otherwise) than you are to make it run faster, it doesn't matter what's theoretically possible.
Intel should sic the lawyer on people who sell relabeled CPUs instead of doing annoying shit like this. Buying a 3GHz CPU means you're buying a piece of silicon, and a guarantee that it will work right at 3GHz. All bets are off if you take it beyond that; The guarantee doesn't apply, but it's still your piece of silicon. Not being able to try it at higher speeds makes it less valuable. I hope, as the article suggested, that any CPUs incorporating this are noticeably cheaper than they would otherwise be. I really like stable computers, so I only overclock my older computers that need to feel a bit faster
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes ,