Guest
The_Punisher29
2003-03-25T17:22:03Z
After the rumours of Intel making a overclocking motherboard code name "Rapid City", Intel got on the 18 March a patent on their processor giving them a lot of dissposal to stop overclocking like a special chip which will deterior the performance of the CPU when it will run at higher speed... Now how are we gonna hack this chip

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8518 
Sponsor
Dante
2003-03-25T23:07:32Z
Intel's greed will hurt them in the end. As more and more people become interested in overclocking and performance tweaking, making an anti-overclocking chip is not exactly the smartest move. People love Intel chips because they O/C so friggin' high. I wonder how their fanbase would slip if they couldn't O/C at all.
The_Punisher29
2003-03-26T19:28:05Z
I agree, this is totally a move in the wrong direction. There was a lot of overclocking demonstration at the Cebit this year !
clee
  •  clee
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Member
2003-03-31T17:35:38Z
Quote:

Originally posted by The_Punisher29
After the rumours of Intel making a overclocking motherboard code name "Rapid City", Intel got on the 18 March a patent on their processor giving them a lot of dissposal to stop overclocking like a special chip which will deterior the performance of the CPU when it will run at higher speed... Now how are we gonna hack this chip
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8518 




Hmmmm....:Rapid City" is a rumour as U said, so can be this.
Actually I already read it last wk but keep in mind that it's only a proposal. Even if it happens, it's not gonna be an "overnight" process, and I don't think it's the ultimate sol'n to thwart FSB overclocking:
1. To implement such a change as depicted in the article, Chipzilla would have to replace the quartz crystal in the detection circuit -- diff. value for each diff. clock speed. Such a major overhaul won't be ready until end of Prescott era/ early stage of Tejas ( ok, it's my guess only).
2. Top-notch overclocker have been playing with own TurboPLL for a long time, and VERY MUCH UNLIKE LOCKED MULTIPLIER ( U can't do anything about it ), a motherboard can be equipped with ocillators either by manufacturer itself ( eg Abit ) or OC'er himself to run at frequencies other than those specified by Intel.
3. Frequency ( aka FSB) is ultimately controlled by clock generator, Intel DON'T make clock generator, mobo makers DO.
4. What Intel proposes is to find a way to deter unetical resellers to remark the chips.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante
Intel's greed will hurt them in the end. As more and more people become interested in overclocking and performance tweaking, making an anti-overclocking chip is not exactly the smartest move. People love Intel chips because they O/C so friggin' high. I wonder how their fanbase would slip if they couldn't O/C at all.

Call'em greedy ( who isn't lol ) all U want but Intel is not trying to prevent enthusiasts from OC'ing the chip, it's objective is to prevent fraudulent sales of remarked chips ( I've seen a lot of theses happenings with "corner store type" PC shops), but not against overclockers.
People love Intel because it's Intel. Same reason why people only buy Corsair because it's Corsair. The OC'er segment only makes up 1-2% market share.
The corporate market, where the main revenue goes, it's all belong to Chipzilla, For the general public, Mr. Joe-Six-Pack don't gives a jack about overclocking anyway.
"IF" this ever gonna happen and succeed( doubtful imo ), it would definitely upset many overclockers, but there'll be people out there who'll only swear by the Intel chips nevertheless.
The_Punisher29
2003-03-31T18:20:49Z
I've read that this patent is 2-3 years old
Dante
2003-03-31T20:15:50Z
Quote:

Originally posted by clee2000
The OC'er segment only makes up 1-2% market share.


I can agree with pretty much everything you said, but to say that the enthusiasts (overclocking and enthusiasts pretty much go hand in hand) only make up 1-2% seems way off to me. Sure, Intel wouldn't have any problems selling to their big business customers. But the people who buy the latest and greatest chips are the enthusiasts, and something like this wouldn't be good for their "flagship" processor sales.
SW-Smokeweed
2003-04-01T01:54:21Z
**** intel **** them in there stupid asses

why the **** would they want to do that
clee
  •  clee
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Member
2003-04-01T19:06:27Z
Quote:

Originally posted by The_Punisher29
I've read that this patent is 2-3 years old

Hmmm...ok, but what are U tryin' to say Pun ? :confused:
Quote:

Originally posted by Dante
but to say that the enthusiasts (overclocking and enthusiasts pretty much go hand in hand) only make up 1-2% seems way off to me.


K...good catch. Honestly I dunno what the actually #is by I'm sure the 1-2% won't be far off:
Certainly overclockers are enthusiasts, but NOT all enthusiasts like to overclock.
What U said might be correct if this happens to AMD, afterall, it's the Athlon core that makes AMD formidable in the "do-it-yourselfer" community.
When I said 1-2%, it represents the percentage of the whole revenue that Intel perceives, don't forget that the whole marketing segment consists of Corporate Server and Workstation sales, the OEM chips which make up the majority of mainstream desktops sale thru the retail channels, then there're the Intel chipset/mobo sales. When you factor all these in, it's an entirely different interrogation for AMD. Enthusiasts see a fierce competition between Barton & P4 in terms of performance, but the PC market in general, Chipzilla ownz it--and the majority DON'T overclock.
Again if this ever happens and there's no alternative but to run it at stock speed( I highly doubt it for the resons I said b 4), the fanbase( overclockers to be specific) will shift, but it's reputation won't be dampened much, OC deterrent will help 'em save tons of $$ from illegal remarked chips .
The_Punisher29
2003-04-01T19:16:04Z
Quote:

Originally posted by clee2000
Hmmm...ok, but what are U tryin' to say Pun ? :confused:




Maybe it's just some kind of pro-AMD that brang back this news... If it's from 1999, why they haven't done it already ?
clee
  •  clee
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Member
2003-04-01T19:28:59Z
Quote:

Originally posted by The_Punisher29
Maybe it's just some kind of pro-AMD that brang back this news... If it's from 1999, why they haven't done it already ?


I'm not sure whether the author of that article is biased or not but definitely there's a problem with resellers tossing out remarked chips these days. The only thing I disagree with the author is when he claims overclocking may produce problems ------- that's utter B.S. to me.