News It seems Intel wants to revive Intel Upgrade Service

[moinmoin]

You remember Intel Upgrade Service? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Upgrade_Service

Phoronix reports Intel is now pushing a driver into the Linux kernel with the same purpose:
The Intel Software Defined Silicon (SDSi) driver is for supporting the "post-manufacturing mechanism for activating additional silicon features."

"Intel Software Defined Silicon" Coming To Linux For Activating Extra Licensed Hardware Features - Phoronix

www.phoronix.com

While this is apparently "only" for Xeon server chips for now this is a worrying precedence. I honestly hope its inclusion into the kernel is rejected.

 

[prawny12009]

How about the unlock all the way from an i5 to an i7, for the price difference between the two? Enable HT, unlock more L3 cache, boost the clock speed. Or enable AVX-512 to speed up Photoshop. Or unlock some EUs on your integrated GPU to improve laptop gaming.

There's a lot of potential things they could offer. It makes it easier for users to get precisely the configuration they want, without Intel having to stock and distribute hundreds of different SKUs.

Sure, some of the features will cost more than $20. But it gives a lot more flexibility. How many of us have bought the i5 because it's good enough for current games, then 4 years later wish we had forked out for the i7 because now it's getting bogged down in the latest games? Imagine if you could pay a reasonable upgrade fee and extend the life of your system for another couple of years. I know I would do it on my Haswell i5.

If Intel can make profit selling you a nerfed i7 as an i5 at a cheaper price the only thing it proves is that the i7 could have been the same price as the i5 to begin with.

I'm not against binning defective parts down to a lower performance sku, but this is different this is taking functional hardware and crippling it then charging to restore the crippled functionality, the term is actually cripple ware.

Intel want to make all their cores identical For ease and cost effectiveness of manufacture, but then refuse to pass that cost or performance benefit to the customer.

I know the answer to that though, it is drive the upgrade market but now instead of looking to sell you two products (low budget chip now them an upgrade later) they want to charge you twice for the same product.

 

[NTMBK]

If Intel can make profit selling you a nerfed i7 as an i5 at a cheaper price the only thing it proves is that the i7 could have been the same price as the i5 to begin with.

I'm not against binning defective parts down to a lower performance sku, but this is different this is taking functional hardware and crippling it then charging to restore the crippled functionality, the term is actually cripple ware.

Intel want to make all their cores identical For ease and cost effectiveness of manufacture, but then refuse to pass that cost or performance benefit to the customer.

I know the answer to that though, it is drive the upgrade market but now instead of looking to sell you two products (low budget chip now them an upgrade later) they want to charge you twice for the same product.

But that's what Intel already does! An i5 is just an i7 with parts of it disabled. And it's not generally due to yield- it's because of product segmentation. They offer a range of performance at a range of prices, so that they can extract maximum profit from the market.

 

[igor_kavinski]

It is in Intel's best interests to ship a single die. At the factory, the binning process will determine how much that single SKU can be upgraded. Then they need an upgrade tool that will show you the various upgrade paths you can take and the prices. It really simplifies the whole process for Intel. They don't have to create different packaging for the different SKUs. They need to put a sticker on the packaging showing the various upgrade paths possible for that particular die. Think of it as something what Microsoft did with Windows 7. A single Windows DVD or USB that can be upgraded as per the needs of the user.

Seriously, they can just start a pilot program with the Pentium series, allowing them to be unlocked to the highest Core i3 model. That will give them the data to decide if it's a worthwhile scheme to encompass their entire line-up.

 

[Doug S]

It is in Intel's best interests to ship a single die. At the factory, the binning process will determine how much that single SKU can be upgraded. Then they need an upgrade tool that will show you the various upgrade paths you can take and the prices. It really simplifies the whole process for Intel. They don't have to create different packaging for the different SKUs. They need to put a sticker on the packaging showing the various upgrade paths possible for that particular die. Think of it as something what Microsoft did with Windows 7. A single Windows DVD or USB that can be upgraded as per the needs of the user.

Seriously, they can just start a pilot program with the Pentium series, allowing them to be unlocked to the highest Core i3 model. That will give them the data to decide if it's a worthwhile scheme to encompass their entire line-up.

While I agree with your first paragraph, it would be silly to do this with the Pentium. The people who buy PCs with Pentiums in them aren't customers for something like this, they are buying cheap because they either have little to spend or because their needs are modest. It is people buying mid to high range stuff who might want to activate a couple cores, give their iGPU a 50% midlife kicker, enable the ability to overclock or something like that.

If Intel does this the only thing I'd be interested in would be an upgrade to allow ECC memory on regular i5/i7 type CPUs. It is pretty clear the capability is present in every Intel CPU, as they sell a few i3 SKUs targeted at the embedded market that support ECC.

 

[igor_kavinski]

If Intel does this the only thing I'd be interested in would be an upgrade to allow ECC memory on regular i5/i7 type CPUs. It is pretty clear the capability is present in every Intel CPU, as they sell a few i3 SKUs targeted at the embedded market that support ECC.

100% agree. But Intel may never do this, as Linus Torvalds pointed out. They are simply evil. They want to sell you a workstation or server with Xeon to be able to do that. Now a mainstream CPU turning into a Xeon, that's also something they could do but you would probably need a server chipset to do that on.

 

[jpiniero]

Seriously, they can just start a pilot program with the Pentium series, allowing them to be unlocked to the highest Core i3 model. That will give them the data to decide if it's a worthwhile scheme to encompass their entire line-up.

I'd be very surprised if any Pentiums would be viable as i3, otherwise they would be sold as i3.

If Intel does this the only thing I'd be interested in would be an upgrade to allow ECC memory on regular i5/i7 type CPUs. It is pretty clear the capability is present in every Intel CPU, as they sell a few i3 SKUs targeted at the embedded market that support ECC.

But the Xeons get extra ECC validation and are usually released a couple quarters later.

 

[igor_kavinski]

I honestly hope its inclusion into the kernel is rejected.

Intel just needs to make some large donations to the Linux Foundation and they can get almost anything accepted into the kernel.

 

[jpiniero]

But that's what Intel already does! An i5 is just an i7 with parts of it disabled. And it's not generally due to yield- it's because of product segmentation.

Especially now with the core count increases I doubt that's true and a fair amount of i5 would not be viable as i7. But it'd be impossible to know the actual percentages.

 

[Doug S]

100% agree. But Intel may never do this, as Linus Torvalds pointed out. They are simply evil. They want to sell you a workstation or server with Xeon to be able to do that. Now a mainstream CPU turning into a Xeon, that's also something they could do but you would probably need a server chipset to do that on.

It isn't that Intel wants to sell you a server/workstation to do it, it is that they know that's something considered a premium offering so they have limited it to higher priced SKUs. So they would charge more than they'd charge for something like enabling more GPU cores or doubling L3 cache size.

Intel isn't worried people will use a desktop as a server. Anyone who considers ECC reliability a must for a server also cares about other things which are also part of the differences between desktop and server product lines.

 

[moinmoin]

Intel just needs to make some large donations to the Linux Foundation and they can get almost anything accepted into the kernel.

You mean to Linus Torvalds? It's still him alone who is gatekeeping what eventually gets into the upstream kernel. The Linux Foundation has no influence on that.

 

[igor_kavinski]

You mean to Linus Torvalds? It's still him alone who is gatekeeping what eventually gets into the upstream kernel. The Linux Foundation has no influence on that.

If he thinks the donation amount would help further the open source cause, he might compromise on his principles. Money doesn't solve everything, but it does solve a LOT of things.

 

[moinmoin]

If he thinks the donation amount would help further the open source cause, he might compromise on his principles. Money doesn't solve everything, but it does solve a LOT of things.

I think you are thinking of the wrong person there.

 

[Shmee]

I wonder if modders/enthusiasts could figure out a way to get free unlocks from something like this by doing UEFI mods etc. Kinda like how some AMD Phenom chips had unlockable cores in the past, Durons unlocked to Athlons, or unlocking shaders/pipelines on GPUs. If the silicon is not hardware laser locked, I think modders could find a way.

 

[bigboxes]

I wonder if modders/enthusiasts could figure out a way to get free unlocks from something like this by doing UEFI mods etc. Kinda like how some AMD Phenom chips had unlockable cores in the past, Durons unlocked to Athlons, or unlocking shaders/pipelines on GPUs. If the silicon is not hardware laser locked, I think modders could find a way.

I do remember my o/cing days. I once unlocked a 3-core Athlon to a 4-core for a customer. I remember modding a 980 Pro to an 980 XT with just flashing a bios. I've always like seeing what I could do.

 

[Doug S]

Why would the upgrade service be rejected from the kernel? Because people don't like Intel's business model? The only reason they'd reject it is if it isn't open source, but I would assume it is pretty simple stuff that lets you present a key/cert to the CPU to enable a feature. Technically they wouldn't even have to do it in kernel space if that was an issue.

 

[Magic Carpet]

I do remember my o/cing days. I once unlocked a 3-core Athlon to a 4-core for a customer.

That were the days…

 

[moinmoin]

Since this thread started Phoronix reported about two more patch sets:

Intel Posts Updated "Software Defined Silicon" Driver To Activate Licensed Hardware Features - Phoronix

www.phoronix.com

Intel Posts Updated Driver & Sample Code For "Software Defined Silicon" - Phoronix

www.phoronix.com

Looks like there's still much work to do.

 

[jpiniero]

Intel Software Defined Silicon Planned For Integration In Linux 5.18 - Phoronix

www.phoronix.com

Appears that it is ready to be mainlined in Kernel 5.18. I still believe this is intended for Xeon Scalable only but being Intel you never know.

 

[moinmoin]

Urgh!

 

[DrMrLordX]

I still believe this is intended for Xeon Scalable only but being Intel you never know.

Just another reason not to buy Sapphire Rapids.

 

[NTMBK]

Just another reason not to buy Sapphire Rapids.

What, the option to enable functionality that would otherwise be hard fused off forever?

 

[moinmoin]

What, the option to enable functionality that would otherwise be hard fused off forever?

The danger of losing functionality relying on potentially non-working/malware exploited software DRM that would otherwise be enable in hardware forever.

 

[DrMrLordX]

What, the option to enable functionality that would otherwise be hard fused off forever?

Surely you don't think Intel is going to use this feature to leave everything enabled in hardware on every SKU? It only allows them to create even more product segmentation.

 

[Zucker2k]

Surely you don't think Intel is going to use this feature to leave everything enabled in hardware on every SKU? It only allows them to create even more product segmentation.

Not if AMD keeps them in check. @NTMBK is right, Intel gains a lot with software unlocks rather than fusing off parts forever, which also costs more money to implement. With these, segmentation will be implemented in software. That's assuming this is what Intel is truly planning.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Not if AMD keeps them in check.

You must be joking. Word is that Intel is planning to disable AVX and force people to pay to enable it! They're treating Xeons like Pentiums and Celerons.