• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is it possible to record overclocking?

N

NeoPTLD

Platinum Member
They say "overlocking voids warranty" but they really don't have a proof its been overclocked. Not sure about CPUs but for videocards, isn't it economically possible to implement a one chip counter/EEPROM solution that measures frequency of the bus?

Things like printer, security system etc stores logs such as alarm counts, total page since manufacutring and such parameter onto non-volatile EEPROM.

What if they implemented a one chip counter/controller that will continuously monitor the bus speed(assumes multiplier is locked and can't be tampered w/o voiding warranty) and log the highest frequency it sees?

The entire chip can be covered in epoxy to resist tampering w/o leaving evidence and only allow write command to EEPROM from the controller itself which is encapsulated in epoxy.

This information can then be read through the interface when sent in for repair to see if it has been clocked beyond allowance.
 
Well, if someone's serious enough to cover their tracks on overclocking a part and sending it back for RMA, wouldn't someone have the guts to make a bios flash and disable writing to your chip?

Sounds like a good idea, but I would doubt it's 100% non circumventable.

EDIT: Better thing to do would be to put it in a chip the card requires - IE the I/O chip. That way, if they try to modify the card, they ruin it themselves.
 
Originally posted by: NeoPTLD
They say "overlocking voids warranty" but they really don't have a proof its been overclocked. Not sure about CPUs but for videocards, isn't it economically possible to implement a one chip counter/EEPROM solution that measures frequency of the bus?

Things like printer, security system etc stores logs such as alarm counts, total page since manufacutring and such parameter onto non-volatile EEPROM.

What if they implemented a one chip counter/controller that will continuously monitor the bus speed(assumes multiplier is locked and can't be tampered w/o voiding warranty) and log the highest frequency it sees?

The entire chip can be covered in epoxy to resist tampering w/o leaving evidence and only allow write command to EEPROM from the controller itself which is encapsulated in epoxy.

This information can then be read through the interface when sent in for repair to see if it has been clocked beyond allowance.
Click to expand...


Firstly
(1) AN average CPU should last for approximately 12-16 years. Defective CPUs generally are unstable and yield erratic results. Except for Cyrix processors, I havent come across any processor that burns away.
(2) A burnt CPU core means that the HSF wasn't installed properly. You can overclock upto a certain limit and if exceed the limits, you may not be able to see the POST screen or the OS won't load......so basically nobody overclocks over and above the limits.
(3) I was just fooling around with my AMD thunderbird without the HSF and the core actually turned red and melted the CPU socket. The core also becomes brittle and leaves a black mark on the PGA package.
(4)A pentium-III 1000E Mhz was overclocked to 1500Mhz using stock HSF. The CPU wasn't able to load windows-ME. This was because the CPU core has certain limitations, the limiting factors here were the 10 stage pipeline and th 0.18u die manufacturing process.
(5)An overclocked CPU easily should last for 5 odd years.
The manufacturers are well aware of these facts, thats why all CPUs come with a 3 years warranty (they know that an overclocked CPU won't burn out in 3 years time and they are also aware of the fact that majority of the people wont be having that particular CPU for more than 2 years.) Basically "overclocking voids warranty" is just an exaggerated statement from the CPU manufacturers to discourage overclocking for no apparent reason.
Remember when intel launched the pentium-III, they had this unique processor identification number which was despised by everbody? Similiarly adding an EEPROM isn't a very good idea, its simply a waste of money and users may not like this feature.
 
Has there been any actual studies as to what kind of losses companies take from overclockers that kill hw and rma it?
I would be willing to bet it is not THAT big a problem,they probably get more assy line error losses IMO.

Most users of computers
1, Run their systems at stock.
2, Don't even know how to get to the bios or use other tools to overclock.
3, Will spend money to upgrade vs trying to oc their current system.

Most users whom overclock their computers,
1, Fully realize the fact they are voiding their warranty.
2, Are unfortunate in the fact that they have less money than some and would probably upgrade if they could vs overclocking.
3, Use due caution and watch temps etc carefully.
4, Wouldn't try to RMA hw they fried.

And some but not many users who overclock their computers,
1, Fully realize the fact they are voiding their warranty.
2, Don't pay attention or don't have the proper experience to monitor system temps etc.
3, When they fry their hardware IMHO it's due to improper cooling or a badly installed cooler.

IMO most hw will not overclock that much and won't even run at dangerous speeds.
So in conclusion,
Manufacturers probably realize that they take a loss due to overclockers, but they also realize that this is a small loss and those same people will buy buy buy.


The cost in manufacturing and customer trust would be MUCH more than they lose from rma issues.
I would not buy a board that spies on me I leave big brother at the curb on this one.
😕
 
Also would that not be invasion of privacy. I mean what you do yes it is wrong if YOU screw something up, however it is not IMO their buisness to go snooping around about what you did to your computer.

-Kevin
 
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Also would that not be invasion of privacy. I mean what you do yes it is wrong if YOU screw something up, however it is not IMO their buisness to go snooping around about what you did to your computer.

-Kevin
Click to expand...

Thats precisely what I said
Remember when intel launched the pentium-III, they had this unique processor identification number which was despised by everbody? Similiarly adding an EEPROM isn't a very good idea, its simply a waste of money and users may not like this feature
Click to expand...
 
Are you guys all going to say "invasion of privacy" about the EEPROM that stores MAC address on NICs too?

It isn't invasion of privacy when it doesn't store identifiable information. Oh but if recording the maximum frequency the card has encountered, then it must be an invasion of privacy that printers log the number of pages printed.
 
MAC address is not stored for the purposes of apprehending people or catching them doing wrong. A clock frequency recorder is, we bought the chip, it is rightfully ours, therefore it is our buisness. There are dishonest people out there its just going to be that way as we are human.

-Kevin
 
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
MAC address is not stored for the purposes of apprehending people or catching them doing wrong. A clock frequency recorder is, we bought the chip, it is rightfully ours, therefore it is our buisness. There are dishonest people out there its just going to be that way as we are human.

-Kevin
Click to expand...

You're saying manufacturers shouldn't be able to protect themselves from someone buying 1000 CPUs, zapping them with wall outlets, and getting replacements under warranty? You buy it, and they will fix it if you didn't use it outside the specified range. They have every right to put a little non-volatile storage on the chip that records the voltage and speeds it is run at. That doesn't mean I think you don't have the right to tamper with the data, if you can figure it out.
 
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
MAC address is not stored for the purposes of apprehending people or catching them doing wrong. A clock frequency recorder is, we bought the chip, it is rightfully ours, therefore it is our buisness. There are dishonest people out there its just going to be that way as we are human.

-Kevin
Click to expand...


Clock frequency recorder isn't for apprehending anyone. It is rightfully yours and you're to do as you please with your CPU and the recorder simply keeps a tally of the maximum frequency used. Which doesn't affect you in anyway.

It simply prevents you from getting the manufacture to replace something YOU BROKE. How is that apprehension?
 
If they start to implement tools for checking CPU frequencies then where does it stop.....do they start monitoring other usage patterns such as web sites etc....reporting back.....

I couldn't care less if people are spying.....cos if you do no wrong then you have nothing to hide.....but what happens when their system fails and wrongly points the finger!!
 
Originally posted by: fuzzynavel
If they start to implement tools for checking CPU frequencies then where does it stop.....do they start monitoring other usage patterns such as web sites etc....reporting back.....

I couldn't care less if people are spying.....cos if you do no wrong then you have nothing to hide.....but what happens when their system fails and wrongly points the finger!!
Click to expand...

That's a false slippery slope. Adding a 2 or 3 byte EEPROM that just records the max frequency and voltage is a LONG way from 1) recording "usage patterns" and 2) "reporting back".
 
I think that I posted this same idea in the video forum a few weeks ago. It isn't really technically difficult to do, but the added mfg/parts cost, would have to be much less than the cost in terms of loss due to fraudulent RMAs to make it worthwhile, and for the most part that isn't true given the current cost-conciousness of the market. Now if CPUs cost $10,000, instead of $100, then it might be a lot more worthwhile to put that sort of "black box" protection into some devices/systems.

It's interesting that the PIII ID was brought up, because that information actually exists in the 0.25u PII CPUs as well. It's a OTP ROM that's "burned" at the factory during the testing phase of mfg, and records things like the max freq, and temperature and thermtrip points, as well as the 96-bit PSN. The information isn't directly accessable on a desktop PII, but it is accessable on a 0.25u PII-Xeon via the SMBus connection on Slot-2. Intel's documents refer to it as the "PI-ROM" (processor information ROM). Part of the PSN (processor serial number) is accessable via IA32 opcodes on the PIII. Really though, the PII and PIII 0.25u cores are basically identical, and just fused differently during mfg. (Much like early desktop Precott P4s having disabled HT, while HT was enabled on the server models.) There was one documented case of mobile PIIs showing up as PIIIs with a PSN in the BIOS and everything. Apparently one batch fell through normal mfg test procedures, and they escaped uncrippled. 😛 Just some interesting processor trivia.

It's my impression that the impetus for adding the serial number, was more for: 1) copy-protection/licensing, for expensive workstation-level software, and 2) preventing theft of the CPUs en-mass, as they could then be tracked down. This was a real problem in the past, I don't know if it still is. The biggest problem was when Pat Gelsinger announced to the world that: 3) The PIII ID was somehow going to help in terms of authentication or security of online transactions, and of course everyone with a clue secretly made fun of Intel for such a boneheaded suggestion. Bruce Schnier did an excellent piece dissecting that marketing lunacy bit-by-bit.

How I got this OT, I don't know. It's 3am here, I apologize.
 
Originally posted by: oldman420
Has there been any actual studies as to what kind of losses companies take from overclockers that kill hw and rma it?
I would be willing to bet it is not THAT big a problem,they probably get more assy line error losses IMO.

Most users of computers
1, Run their systems at stock.
2, Don't even know how to get to the bios or use other tools to overclock.
3, Will spend money to upgrade vs trying to oc their current system.

Most users whom overclock their computers,
1, Fully realize the fact they are voiding their warranty.
2, Are unfortunate in the fact that they have less money than some and would probably upgrade if they could vs overclocking.
3, Use due caution and watch temps etc carefully.
4, Wouldn't try to RMA hw they fried.

And some but not many users who overclock their computers,
1, Fully realize the fact they are voiding their warranty.
2, Don't pay attention or don't have the proper experience to monitor system temps etc.
3, When they fry their hardware IMHO it's due to improper cooling or a badly installed cooler.

IMO most hw will not overclock that much and won't even run at dangerous speeds.
So in conclusion,
Manufacturers probably realize that they take a loss due to overclockers, but they also realize that this is a small loss and those same people will buy buy buy.


The cost in manufacturing and customer trust would be MUCH more than they lose from rma issues.
I would not buy a board that spies on me I leave big brother at the curb on this one.
😕
Click to expand...

Right, there isn't much concern over the enthusiast OC'ers. What was much more damaging was the channel OC'ers. These folks would buy a case of cheap CPU's, OC them, then sell them to their unsuspecting customers at the premium price. The manufacturer was then cheated of the profits that their premium parts should have been earning, and their reputation was suffering as these systems suffered premature deaths. That is the big motivation behind the manufacturer's anti-OC policies.
 
As stated above, it seems IMPOSSIBLE to fry a chip from overclocking. The only way you can probably fry it is volt mod your motherboard and feed inane amounts of voltage into your CPU.
I've overclocked all the CPUs I've owned so far, probably only about 10 or so, but NONE has ever shown wear and tear from overclocking. I have fried two CPUs before, from improper installation.
 
i cant see chip makers putting eeprom in their chips just to ensure that cores that were fried from ocing could be replaced under their warrenty simply because it is not cost effective. think of the number of people that actually overclock, it is acute compared to the numbers of people who go out and buy "dells". if they were really concerned about consumers overclocking they would do so in the bios.
 
How would the CPU know what the FSB frequency or what voltage it's running at, without a frame of reference? What would it compare it to?
Would it have to get that info from the MOBO?
 
Originally posted by: SuperTool
How would the CPU know what the FSB frequency or what voltage it's running at, without a frame of reference? What would it compare it to?
Would it have to get that info from the MOBO?
Click to expand...

For CPUs, this is probably not feasable (at least with current designs), since they take their voltage and FSB from the motherboard. All the CPU *really* knows is what the multiplier is set to; you couldn't detect FSB overclocking from the CPU side without extra hardware, and even that wouldn't be all that reliable (since you can change the voltage going into the chip as well, and most clock circuits change speed at different voltages).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top