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

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

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.

But the affected users will all have purchased the 'K' versions of Intel cpus, which ARE supposed to include HBO-channel/MMO-free-mana-function/etc/etc, as Intel probably advertise the 'K' versions, as being freely overclockable.

Not all users realize that ONLY the top and most expensive (usually) motherboard, MUST also be purchased in order to use the 'K' functionality.

I bet if you search the old threads on this and other similar forums, there will be countless posts, on the lines of, "Why does my freely overclockable K series Intel chip, refuse to overclock ?".

But you have raised a good counter argument, because there are obvious similarities to the examples you gave.

--------------------------

Apparently Intel may have already done this a while ago, some details here :

Not much detail, sorry

Above link came from this much bigger article

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Not all users realize that ONLY the top and most expensive (usually) motherboard, MUST also be purchased in order to use the 'K' functionality.

Then their main complaint should be with the motherboard manufacturers who deliberately sold boards with their chipsets configured in a manner they knew was not appropriate, should it not?

Again, I agree that Intel could have handled this far better, but I do not agree that these people are entitled to anything beyond a motherboard refund.

 

[galego]

The microcode update will be released this week

http://techreport.com/news/25138/new-haswell-microcode-to-block-overclocking-on-non-z87-mobos

 

[PPB]

The first time I heard of a platform has to be validated for running something OUT OF SPEC (ie. a cpu overclocked by the consumer). That was a good one indeed.

 

[sushiwarrior]

Then their main complaint should be with the motherboard manufacturers who deliberately sold boards with their chipsets configured in a manner they knew was not appropriate, should it not?

But as far as we know (I don't own an overclocking H87), there are no actual problems with it. It's operating fine, the users are enjoying their overclocking/free performance, yet Intel is coming down and saying "I'm sorry Customer, I'm afraid I can't [let you] do that" and taking away something which was working fine.

It's not like these boards are absolutely unstable, waiting-to-fail pieces of junk.

 

[TerryMathews]

But as far as we know (I don't own an overclocking H87), there are no actual problems with it. It's operating fine, the users are enjoying their overclocking/free performance, yet Intel is coming down and saying "I'm sorry Customer, I'm afraid I can't [let you] do that" and taking away something which was working fine.

It's not like these boards are absolutely unstable, waiting-to-fail pieces of junk.

Let's be honest.

There is nothing wrong with it, except Intel didn't get their proper tribute. I remember this happening in the past too, maybe something to do with the 865 and 875 chipset?

 

[blackened23]

I find it odd that the complainers are die hard AMD fans who continually post anti intel threads and would never buy intel anyway.....

 

[CHADBOGA]

I find it odd that the complainers are die hard AMD fans who continually post anti intel threads and would never buy intel anyway.....

They are motivated by their love of humanity. :awe:

 

[TerryMathews]

I find it odd that the complainers are die hard AMD fans who continually post anti intel threads and would never buy intel anyway.....

Die hard? I've owned far more Intel rigs than AMD. Hell, right now I own more Intel than AMD (3:2).

I just don't like getting f'ed in the butt without the common courtesy of a reach around.

 

[OCGuy]

I wonder how many people complaining about this would be honest if a chip died, or if they would RMA it anyway.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I find it odd that the complainers are die hard AMD fans who continually post anti intel threads and would never buy intel anyway.....

You noticed that too?

youreinatrollthread.jpeg

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

I wonder how many people complaining about this would be honest if a chip died, or if they would RMA it anyway.

I'm very pleased with the quality of this forum, and have to thank, EVERYONE.

Some forums, would try to win arguments by carrying out a SMEAR campaign, attempting to prove that the opponents, are dishonest, wildly obsessed, and plain WRONG by definition.

E.g. They dishonestly RMA stuff they broke due to their mistakes or excessive overclocking (e.g. cpu Voltage).

Arguments should be won, by discussing the FACTS of the discussion, NOT attacking the moral and other values, of anyone who disagrees with them.

 

[sushiwarrior]

I find it odd that the complainers are die hard AMD fans who continually post anti intel threads and would never buy intel anyway.....

And I find it very understandable that the people defending Intel for actions which are completely and absolutely negative for consumers, no matter which way you spin it, are the same people who continually post anti-AMD threads and (just like 90% of the population :biggrin would never buy AMD anyway...

For clarity, I own a 3570k, I just so happen to like having consumer freedom to an extent. Used to be able to buy the low end SKU and overclock like mad, then you used to be able to buy the middle-high end SKU with a cheap board, and now you need the middle-high end SKU and a premium board, soon the only way you will be able to OC with Intel is extreme platforms with the special "-XK" CPU's which cost an extra $300, etc. etc.

We are slowly losing ALL of our ability to OC, at this rate overclocking will cost such a price premium that it will never be worth it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

But as far as we know (I don't own an overclocking H87), there are no actual problems with it.

It's not a technical recall. It's Intel preventing motherboard makers from undercutting high-end chipset sales.

I just don't like getting f'ed in the butt without the common courtesy of a reach around.

Your analogy is both crass and invalid.

 

[TerryMathews]

It's not a technical recall. It's Intel preventing motherboard makers from undercutting high-end chipset sales.



Your analogy is both crass and invalid.

I made plenty of analogies that were tasteful and valid. I couldn't help but notice you failed to address all of them. DC all over again?

 

[cytg111]

..However, it's pretty obvious that most knew they were getting something extra they shouldn't have gotten at the time they bought it.

- No, it is not pretty obvious.

I mostly take issue with the attitude that people are entitled to whatever they can get away with

- You dont like optimizing your day? That is your call. I get paid to make more things happen with less.

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.

- Again, noone caught up in this was thinking "Wohoo gonna have my cake and eat it too..", to think that is just friggin stupid.

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.

- Empathy is something built-in, as in factory made, either it is shipped with the product or it is not. It *is* something you can ask a person to perform, but you shouldnt have to.
(perhaps its something that can be fixed with a microcode update push)

I find it odd that the complainers are die hard AMD fans who continually post anti intel threads and would never buy intel anyway.....

- No die hard fan of anything here, just a perspective of whats right and whats wrong, and what might stand in court or might not.



edit : something for the anadtech tech team, just got this
"<!--
Database error in vBulletin :

mysqli_real_connect(): (08004/1040): Too many connections
/var/www/html/includes/class_core.php on line 1138

MySQL Error :
Error Number :
Request Date : Friday, July 26th 2013 @ 06:13:30 PM
Error Date : Friday, July 26th 2013 @ 06:13:30 PM
Script : http://forums.anandtech.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&amp;p=35310032
Referrer : http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=35310189
IP Address : 62.44.134.64
Username :
Classname : vB_Database_MySQLi
MySQL Version :
-->"
Looks like a DOS begging to be exploited.

 

[Phynaz]

I find it odd that the complainers are die hard AMD fans who continually post anti intel threads and would never buy intel anyway.....

And did those same people hammer AMD when they blocked HD6950 unlocking via an updated BIOS???

 

[jvroig]

I find it odd that the complainers are die hard AMD fans who continually post anti intel threads and would never buy intel anyway.....

I find it rather disconcerting that you find it necessary to generalize and negatively categorize everyone who does not share the same opinion as you as some sort of die-hard lunatic.

Do you consider Idontcare a die-hard AMD fan? Because he didn't exactly come here to just pile on galego, and made this post that voices his opinion on how this dick move (as he described it) from Intel is a "war on its own customers", ergo, anti-consumer.

Picking up from that, I then made a post to expound on his thoughts and give my own 2c on why I believe this is probably unnecessary (i.e., Intel is needlessly exposing themselves to bad rep) and, although Intel is justified in wanting to penalize someone for this debacle of OCing where OCing should not be, I believe they erred when they decided to include valid customers (who have already bought the board and are already using it for whatever purpose as was sold to them originally) in their revenge, instead of focusing the consequences on the board makers and whoever in Intel is responsible (if any) while making sure all previous valid customers have limited exposure to collateral damage as a result of said consequences against the board makers.

I guess this means, because I didn't just blindly defend Intel and instead decided to continue Idontcare's train of thought, we must be die-hard AMD fans, right? Never mind that AMD isn't even in the picture, because this isn't an AMD vs Intel thread.

And there are other posters here who didn't come here to defend Intel, but are bringing up similar aspects, with different nuances to their perceived issue against this topic. As long as they didn't declare Intel saintly and blameless here, they must be rabid fanboys too, right?

I guess the real question is, why do you feel the need to just brand everyone who doesn't share your own POV as rabid fanboys, and not debate with whoever people in the thread that you think are worth debating with, be they the OP or not? Or, if you don't want to exert the effort to do so, why did you bother to post just a general wide-scale attack on all your "enemies"? You already know we can't have that here. That never ends well, and if you have personal issues with some members, then it behooves you to avoid their threads if you can't control yourself.

I'm not saying there aren't any fanboys. We have lots of raging fanboys from all 3 major companies here - Intel, NV, AMD - and that's fine and dandy, and they all get to have their say as long as they follow the proper forum decorum as hashed out in the forum guidelines. You may not like them or what they have to say, but that's what a forum is for - a free exchange of ideas and opinions. It can't be a place where the only acceptable opinions or conclusions are the ones you personally hold or agree with.

Please, reconsider your approach here.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

- Again, noone caught up in this was thinking "Wohoo gonna have my cake and eat it too..", to think that is just friggin stupid.

These chipsets were not supposed to support overclocking. The motherboard makers did an end-run around the specification and people bought the products knowing they were getting something that was not intended to be the way it was.

I think Intel's move was a bad one from a PR standpoint. Their beef was with the motherboard makers, not the end consumers, and should have been addressed in that direction.

However, the attitude of entitlement here held by certain individuals is unjustifiable. Intel has every right to market-segment its products; consumers have the right to decide whether or not to buy them.

 

[rainy]

Jvroig, I can say only: it's a great post and I fully agree with you.

 

[cytg111]

These chipsets were not supposed to support overclocking. The motherboard makers did an end-run around the specification and people bought the products knowing they were getting something that was not intended to be the way it was.

I think Intel's move was a bad one from a PR standpoint. Their beef was with the motherboard makers, not the end consumers, and should have been addressed in that direction.

However, the attitude of entitlement here held by certain individuals is unjustifiable. Intel has every right to market-segment its products; consumers have the right to decide whether or not to buy them.

In agreement besides this "..and people bought the products knowing.." .. I beg to differ, people did not. If you got free cable and get cut off, you dont get to whine, but that is hardly the scenario here.. Our compute is still in the living room, not in the cloud just yet.

Jvroig, I can say only: it's a great post and I fully agree with you.

+1

 

[Charles Kozierok]

In agreement besides this "..and people bought the products knowing.." .. I beg to differ, people did not. If you got free cable and get cut off, you dont get to whine, but that is hardly the scenario here.. Our compute is still in the living room, not in the cloud just yet.

If this were a typical end-consumer product, I might agree with you. But it's not. We're talking about enthusiasts/overclockers, most of whom knew full well what they were buying, and why.

The items were advertised pretty brazenly. Example:

Who ever said that only K series CPUs and the Z-family platform are capable of being overclocked? The avant-garde company ASRock has broken this limitation with an exciting new feature named Non-Z OC! Via this feature overclockers may install their K series CPUs to ASRock&#8217;s Fatal1ty H87 Performance or any other H87 B85 chipset motherboards and start overclocking immediately!

I'm sure some didn't realize that this wasn't kosher, and again, I do think most of the blame for this falls on motherboard makers, but most consumers knew what was going on.

ETA: If it had been me running Intel, I would have done this and offered to replace all of the affected motherboards with Z versions out of Intel's pocket. Would send the necessary message and be much better PR.

 

[TerryMathews]

If this were a typical end-consumer product, I might agree with you. But it's not. We're talking about enthusiasts/overclockers, most of whom knew full well what they were buying, and why.

The items were advertised pretty brazenly. Example:



I'm sure some didn't realize that this wasn't kosher, and again, I do think most of the blame for this falls on motherboard makers, but most consumers knew what was going on.

ETA: If it had been me running Intel, I would have done this and offered to replace all of the affected motherboards with Z versions out of Intel's pocket. Would send the necessary message and be much better PR.

I agree with your ETA 100%. Putting a kibosh on this going forward isn't the issue. Retroactively reaching into people's boxes and disabling features, ill-gotten or not is distasteful at best. Illegal at worst.

 

[blackened23]

That isn't what intel did at all. Intel's white papers stated that only Z chipsets would allow unlocked overclocking, and motherboard manufactures implemented workarounds to get around this limitation. Non Z chipsets have not allowed for unlocked overclocking for many generations now, so this was not a surprise - Neither of the low end chips were ever intended to allow for unlocked overclocking. Motherboard makers KNEW they weren't supposed to do this, but they proceeded anyway to gain an edge in the market. Of course, blame intel. Not the motherboard manufacturers who unscrupulously did backhanded workarounds to bypass intel's limitations.

Also, a lot of words were attributed to me which I never stated. There are those in this thread with reasonable opinions even if they disagree with intel, and many others here solely to bash intel for whatever reason they can find in hundreds of threads. Taken in the context of hundreds of similar posts and threads, it is borderline trolling. That's their prerogative though. I never said anything good or bad about that practice or the posters in question. Whatever.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Then their main complaint should be with the motherboard manufacturers who deliberately sold boards with their chipsets configured in a manner they knew was not appropriate, should it not?

Again, I agree that Intel could have handled this far better, but I do not agree that these people are entitled to anything beyond a motherboard refund.

"not appropriate"? Are people supposed to get Intel's permission in order to overclock? Are you JOKING?