Intel updates microcode to block H87/B85 overclocking [BT]

[VirtualLarry]

Its you installing the windows update or BIOS. You fully agree to this yourself and gave it full permission. And its not Intel distributing it either, its MS or the mobo maker.

So Intel is like a mafia boss, they don't do the hits themselves, they hire someone, so they're not responsible for murder? Is that your argument?

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

I think it would be perfectly valid, to define this windows update, as malicious, and causing permanent damage to the previously fully working 4770K microchip.

Maybe we will have a massive court case against Intel and Microsoft, possibly from a number of countries.

The publicity would not go well for Intel on this either.

I'm also concerned about this mechanism built into Intel chips, which allows Intel to remotely damage or whatever, your Intel chip.
What are its capabilities.
Can it be told to secretly record all your activities and relay them to security agencies etc ?

 

[VirtualLarry]

Did you consider AMDs (forced) update to Phenom CPUs with a TLB bug with heavy performance panalties for the same? Or did you consider that a bug fix?

Because that WAS a true bug-fix. You are being very disingenious here. It's not like the TLB bug-fix disabled the unlocked multipliers of the Black Edition CPUs, or locked the CPU multipliers when it detected it was running on a 785G or 760G mobo, rather than a 990FX mobo.

The B/H platform is not valdated for overclocking, its not tested and the platform its on may not be capable of substaining it. Meaning the consumer might get a bad experience. And this is essentially why Intel went into the mobo business in the first place. But I am unaware if you are old enough or able to remember that far back.

More worthless FUD. "Not validated" - you mean to say, "not validated by Intel". I'm sure it was validated by the mobo makers, enough to make it work.
Btw, in the long history of Intel and overclocking, when has it ever been necessary for overclocking to be "validated"? Don't we overclockers always have to run stress-tests on our own.

And technically speaking, by increasing the multi - it's the CPU running out of spec, not the chipset.

 

[sushiwarrior]

Pretty funny watching the Intel faithful show up and blame the motherboard manufacturers. How DARE they give users extra value and extra features! That's just appalling of them, very anti-consumer! Thank god for Intel the Almighty showing up and removing features under the guise of stability.

 

[readymix]

Your ISP and cell provider also lowers your service speed/abilities to keep quality up.

.

no, my isp gives me more. intel gives you less.

http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/r28452367-Optimum-Online-Speed-Tier-Increase-

 

[cytg111]

.. The speed when you first play with a BP6 is amazing.

- Of course I had the same board ... We shoould have an oldtimer section on these forums for stuff like this.
edit : v 2.0 too iirc

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

- Of course I had the same board ... We shoould have an oldtimer section on these forums for stuff like this.
edit : v 2.0 too iirc

I had exactly the same idea, creating a Abit BP6 thread and/or old milestones/successes etc or my-first-overclock.

 

[ShintaiDK]

no, my isp gives me more. intel gives you less.

http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/r28452367-Optimum-Online-Speed-Tier-Increase-

When you got cable its overprovisioned. But if you got DSL for example its not. Plus you pay for the framing as well in your bandwidth allocation. Not to mention DSL depends on copper quality and changes over seasons.

Also in primetime you get different speeds. Since no ISP in their right mind provision so everyone gets full speed. So while you can shw off good speeds part of the day, you usually cant in the other part.

Its abit like claiming there is no congestion in traffic ever, when you drive around at 4 in the morning.

 

[TerryMathews]

Unless Intel properly labels the microcode update in Windows Update it's an anti-consumer, dick move.

I haven't followed Intel in a while. Are microcode updates still loaded on every boot, or has Intel made the space writable?

 

[ShintaiDK]

I haven't followed Intel in a while. Are microcode updates still loaded on every boot, or has Intel made the space writable?

Microcode is loaded at every boot in the BIOS, and Windows/*Nix then loads any updated microcode as when under the OS load.

 

[jvroig]

So I can understand the emotional response that Intel is getting from this total dick move on their part.

And it's not just that it's a total dick move.

First, I can't even see why they bothered at all, when all I could see that they would get from it is a bad rep (unless internally their bean counters have determined they are actually losing lots of $$$ thanks to their mobo partners buying much more B and a lot less Z chipsets because of this). So why bother? No one is going to blame them (Intel) for boards that get borked through overclocking. So it can't be "we are protecting our rep".

Second, a mistake was made by someone who IS NOT the consumer who bought the product. I don't want to get into the argument of whose fault it really was (the mobo makers for being too clever / overzealous, or Intel for not locking down the chipset in the first place; it doesn't matter who among the two gets the final blame), the point is that it isn't the customer who made the mistake. He saw something labelled with X features, decided it was cheap enough, got it, enjoyed it, overclocked it, blah blah blah, then AFTER THE FACT gets some retro-fix that lessens his use of the product. I really don't get that.

If Intel is pissed at the mobo makers for circumventing the no-OC rule/policy/check, then that's between the mobo makers and Intel. Intel should find a way to penalize those guys, not the customers. Or if upon examining all evidence that we are not privy to, it turns out the fault is squarely on some pointy-haired manager at Intel who decided it wasn't important to put locks in place on the lower-end chipsets to purposely prevent OC-ing, then penalize that guy/team/department, and not the customer. Or, Intel can go crazy and penalize mobo makers involved AND a guy/team/department of their own. I don't really care. As long as it isn't the customers who are in their cross-hairs.

It as as you say, Idontcare, "an act of war on its own customers". All they are doing here is being anti-consumer. I get that they want to punish/penalize someone, and I don't want to stop them from doing so (clearly, if an employee or partner made mistakes or didn't uphold a deal, then these people deserve to be penalized), it's just that their solution here strikes me as punishing the wrong entity.

 

[ShintaiDK]

And it's not just that it's a total dick move.

First, I can't even see why they bothered at all, when all I could see that they would get from it is a bad rep (unless internally their bean counters have determined they are actually losing lots of $$$ thanks to their mobo partners buying much more B and a lot less Z chipsets because of this). So why bother? No one is going to blame them (Intel) for boards that get borked through overclocking. So it can't be "we are protecting our rep".

Second, a mistake was made by someone who IS NOT the consumer who bought the product. I don't want to get into the argument of whose fault it really was (the mobo makers for being too clever / overzealous, or Intel for not locking down the chipset in the first place; it doesn't matter who among the two gets the final blame), the point is that it isn't the customer who made the mistake. He saw something labelled with X features, decided it was cheap enough, got it, enjoyed it, overclocked it, blah blah blah, then AFTER THE FACT gets some retro-fix that lessens his use of the product. I really don't get that.

If Intel is pissed at the mobo makers for circumventing the no-OC rule/policy/check, then that's between the mobo makers and Intel. Intel should find a way to penalize those guys, not the customers. Or if upon examining all evidence that we are not privy to, it turns out the fault is squarely on some pointy-haired manager at Intel who decided it wasn't important to put locks in place on the lower-end chipsets to purposely prevent OC-ing, then penalize that guy/team/department, and not the customer. Or, Intel can go crazy and penalize mobo makers involved AND a guy/team/department of their own. I don't really care. As long as it isn't the customers who are in their cross-hairs.

It as as you say, Idontcare, "an act of war on its own costumers". All they are doing here is being anti-consumer. I get that they want to punish/penalize someone, and I don't want to stop them from doing so (clearly, if an employee or partner made mistakes or didn't uphold a deal, then these people deserve to be penalized), it's just that their solution here strikes me as punishing the wrong entity.

There is another thing too. This is also fixed in the C2 stepping. So all future boards that starts to ship next month more or less wont be able to overclock. Even if the microcode is not distributed. Meaning you ahve random versions of boards that overclocks and dont. Even tho they are the same model.

As I see it, the mobo makers took a product and added a feature it didnt sell with. So mobo makers should accept peoples RMAs and replace with Z series boards. And thats something I doubt they can avoid in the EU for example.

 

[readymix]

Your ISP and cell provider also lowers your service speed/abilities to keep quality up.

Also in primetime you get different speeds. Since no ISP in their right mind provision so everyone gets full speed. So while you can shw off good speeds part of the day, you usually cant in the other part.

there is no congestion in traffic ever

given my need, congestion was minor and infrequent problem back when on docsis 2 . since the free upgrade to docsis 3 and additional channel bonding, it's just as you say, no congestion ever.

 

[Zap]

If you bought a car because it has a 3 litre engine, and can do 130 MPH.

Can the car manufacturer break into your home, remove the engine, and swap it for a 1 litre engine, that can only do 90 MPH ?

Close enough?

If you can locate the original 2006 flash there is a very noticable difference at low rpm. The reflash kills off quit a bit of torque below 3K which the ms6 really needs. Mazda should fix the mechanical or design issues rather than having us drive a different car than the one we bought.

Basically, to "fix" some issues, Mazda had dealers flash ECUs of cars coming in for repair or even maintenance, which resulted in lower power.

I know of this because I drive a Mazdaspeed 6. IDK if similar occurrences have happened to other brands/models.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

that it isn't the customer who made the mistake. He saw something labelled with X features, decided it was cheap enough, got it, enjoyed it, overclocked it, blah blah blah, then AFTER THE FACT gets some retro-fix that lessens his use of the product. I really don't get that.



It as as you say, Idontcare, "an act of war on its own costumers". All they are doing here is being anti-consumer.

it's just that their solution here strikes me as punishing the wrong entity.

I think if Intel carries on and does this, then maybe we can say they "lost the plot".

It would be a bit like when Amazon e-books, WITHOUT CUSTOMERS PERMISSION, deleted e-books on the innocent customers Kindles, remotely, because of some spat with the publishers or something, but NOTHING to do with the customer.
There was a huge outcry about this, and people disliked "big brother" amazon for doing this.

I think Intel would find themselves in the same situation. It could cost them a huge amount in lost sales, as scared customers specifically ask for "AMD" products, instead of Intels, as they are worried Intel might decide to do it again.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Close enough?


Basically, to "fix" some issues, Mazda had dealers flash ECUs of cars coming in for repair or even maintenance, which resulted in lower power.

I know of this because I drive a Mazdaspeed 6. IDK if similar occurrences have happened to other brands/models.

I thought I was telling a completely fictitious story, to explain a point (Analogy).

I never thought in a million years, it has actually happened in real life (to a less dramatic, but still very annoying extent).

I think the real complication here is that if there is a real "fault", such as the bug in an earlier AMD chip, or a fault in the car, then "fixing it via a software/microcode patch", might be the most practical way of dealing with the fault.

As long as both the following are true:

1. There is an actual, real fault or faults, which MUST be sorted out
2. The customer is made fully aware of what is happening, why and how it may effect the future performance of the item

Then it should be reasonably ok.

A really good/nice supplier/business maybe should offer compensation if the performance is drastically worse, after fixing it.

E.g. If the cpu is losing 10% speed, but had the clock multiplier LOCKED, then offer a free UNLOCKING of it (there are issues if that means overclocking, though).

For the car, they should either swap the car for a fully working one, or pay compensation or something, ideally.

Specifically, with the car, my understanding is that late in the production run (i.e. after production has started), they will usually try to limit all changes to be software updates, where ever possible. Because these are much cheaper and quicker.
Hardware fixes can be impracticable, because it can take many years, from starting the design of a component, until all the testing is finished, and they can start producing it in volume.

But anyway, your car example is a GREAT one, and tears apart some of my arguments (unfortunately!).

 

[BUnit1701]

There is another thing too. This is also fixed in the C2 stepping. So all future boards that starts to ship next month more or less wont be able to overclock. Even if the microcode is not distributed. Meaning you ahve random versions of boards that overclocks and dont. Even tho they are the same model.

As I see it, the mobo makers took a product and added a feature it didnt sell with. So mobo makers should accept peoples RMAs and replace with Z series boards. And thats something I doubt they can avoid in the EU for example.

I dont understand where you are getting this 'The boards must be RMAed' idea from, if they work (which they do unless Intel purposely breaks them) then there is no need for any exchange. Obviously, when the new revision chips come out, the motherboard makers will have to discontinue advertising the boards as OC capable, but there is no reason whatsoever for boards that are functioning in the wild to need to be changed.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I think if Intel carries on and does this, then maybe we can say they "lost the plot".

It would be a bit like when Amazon e-books, WITHOUT CUSTOMERS PERMISSION, deleted e-books on the innocent customers Kindles, remotely, because of some spat with the publishers or something, but NOTHING to do with the customer.
There was a huge outcry about this, and people disliked "big brother" amazon for doing this.

I think Intel would find themselves in the same situation. It could cost them a huge amount in lost sales, as scared customers specifically ask for "AMD" products, instead of Intels, as they are worried Intel might decide to do it again.

Not sure how many sales would be lost. Overclockers are what, maybe 1or 2 percent of total sales? And only a small portion of that small group are affected by this issue.

I agree though the best solution is just to apply the "fix" to new boards being sold now and in the future. I am not sure how bios updates would be affected though. Would you have to have a separate update to leave overclocking intact on boards sold before a certain date, and could someone with a board sold later be able to use that bios to enable overclocking ?

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Not sure how many sales would be lost. Overclockers are what, maybe 1or 2 percent of total sales? And only a small portion of that small group are affected by this issue.

The risk for Intel, would be that these days, news reporting organisations, tend to be happy to exaggerate (sometimes wildly), real life stories.

So if Intel did this, and it got picked up big time by the media, the fact it only applies to a small minority of users, would get relatively missed out of some of the news reports.
So by the time the bulk of end users, hear about it, it will sound something like "DON'T BUY INTEL, they will send secret signals down the internet, which will considerably slow down your computer".

In all likelihood, it won't effect their computer, and they probably won't even know what overclocking is.
But it could scare users into buying AMD based computers. And some future adverts, for AMD computers, may boast that their computers DO NOT change specification, after purchase.

E.g. Would you now fly on a 787 dreamliner, if you were scared stiff of fires on board aircraft, while it is in the middle of its journey ?

The news can have a big impact on what people do and buy.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

So should Intel be able to disable anything it wants to that isn't "as designed"?

Yes.

How about using a laptop CPU in a desktop?

Sure.

More PCIe video cards than the chipset supports? (Think BTC mining)

Absolutely.

Same goes for AMD or any other company.

They are obligated to deliver what is promised, not allow you to get more than you paid for.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I think if Intel carries on and does this, then maybe we can say they "lost the plot".

It would be a bit like when Amazon e-books, WITHOUT CUSTOMERS PERMISSION, deleted e-books on the innocent customers Kindles, remotely, because of some spat with the publishers or something, but NOTHING to do with the customer.
There was a huge outcry about this, and people disliked "big brother" amazon for doing this.

I think Intel would find themselves in the same situation. It could cost them a huge amount in lost sales, as scared customers specifically ask for "AMD" products, instead of Intels, as they are worried Intel might decide to do it again.

The risk for Intel, would be that these days, news reporting organisations, tend to be happy to exaggerate (sometimes wildly), real life stories.

So if Intel did this, and it got picked up big time by the media, the fact it only applies to a small minority of users, would get relatively missed out of some of the news reports.
So by the time the bulk of end users, hear about it, it will sound something like "DON'T BUY INTEL, they will send secret signals down the internet, which will considerably slow down your computer".

In all likelihood, it won't effect their computer, and they probably won't even know what overclocking is.
But it could scare users into buying AMD based computers. And some future adverts, for AMD computers, may boast that their computers DO NOT change specification, after purchase.

E.g. Would you now fly on a 787 dreamliner, if you were scared stiff of fires on board aircraft, while it is in the middle of its journey ?

The news can have a big impact on what people do and buy.

Agreed, that is a possibility.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Yes.



Sure.



Absolutely.

Same goes for AMD or any other company.

They are obligated to deliver what is promised, not allow you to get more than you paid for.

Technically or legally I suppose you are correct. However it would be much preferable to disable these features before the sale instead of remotely accessing the computer of individual users to do it after the sale. Even legally one could argue that once sold the manufacturer has sold the product they have no right to modify it, but I am sure that there are legal loopholes that allow this.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Technically or legally I suppose you are correct. However it would be much preferable to disable these features before the sale instead of remotely accessing the computer of individual users to do it after the sale. Even legally one could argue that once sold the manufacturer has sold the product they have no right to modify it, but I am sure that there are legal loopholes that allow this.

I agree that people do have some basis for complaint about retroactive changes. However, it's pretty obvious that most knew they were getting something extra they shouldn't have gotten at the time they bought it.

I mostly take issue with the attitude that people are entitled to whatever they can get away with, and Intel is somehow evil for fixing it. This situation just reminds me of MMO players who find an exploit, use it for months, and then complain when it gets taken away. It's like asking me to feel empathy for a guy who calls up and screams at his cable company because they discovered he's been getting free HBO for a year and they finally turn it off.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I find it strange that anti-consumer behavior is celebrated...because it's not like you are invested in this behavior?

I hold a non-trivial stock position in INTC (as well as other semiconductors). It is far more valuable to me that Intel maintain/improve its profitability than it is for me to save $50 on a processor that I buy once ever year or two.

 

[TerryMathews]

I agree that people do have some basis for complaint about retroactive changes. However, it's pretty obvious that most knew they were getting something extra they shouldn't have gotten at the time they bought it.

I mostly take issue with the attitude that people are entitled to whatever they can get away with, and Intel is somehow evil for fixing it. This situation just reminds me of MMO players who find an exploit, use it for months, and then complain when it gets taken away. It's like asking me to feel empathy for a guy who calls up and screams at his cable company because they discovered he's been getting free HBO for a year and they finally turn it off.

"some basis"?

Let's take this from the electronic world to the physical one. In 1996, GM made some Corvette LT1 engines using LT4 internals due to a parts shortage.

Should GM be able to require that owners submit their car for an overhaul? Should they be allowed to swap the internals out at a maintenance appointment without the customers consent?

Should they be allowed to deceptively describe calling the parts swap something else? "Drivetrain reliability improvement"?