WTF can one get a E6540 (SLAA5) ?

revolutn

Member
Dec 13, 2000
104
1
0
I've been looking for a supplier for an Intel Core 2 Duo E6540 (SLAA5).

It's specs are IDENTICAL to the very popular E6550, but the TXT is disabled.

Newegg, ZipZoomFly, BUY, Pricegrabber, etc all come up with nothing.

The only OEM system I've found utilizing it is a POC system from SEARS?! (cough)

I'm sorry but I'm not purchasing a system from Sears.

I'm amazed considering all the threads I've read of people copmplaining about the TXT controversy, that there seems to be 0 interest in the E6540.

If anyone can post a suggested vendor that carries it or can order a part by the S-Spec from Intel I'd appreciate it.

Rev
 

Seggybop

Member
Oct 17, 2007
117
0
0
Can you elaborate on the implications of the TXT? It's hard to use the google, since TXT is so common an abbreviation.
 

revolutn

Member
Dec 13, 2000
104
1
0
Originally posted by: Aluvus
Originally posted by: Seggybop
Can you elaborate on the implications of the TXT? It's hard to use the google, since TXT is so common an abbreviation.

OP probably meant Trusted Execution Technology. Intel has a primer. The Wikipedia article looks to be approximately correct.

Yup, Trusted eXecution Technology is precisely what I meant.

And among other articles I was thinking about this one:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...2_qx6850_e6850_e6750/2

Plus some of the really good comments made on it.

I guess I'm just confussed why no one seems to be talking about this processor since it has all the specs of the much beloved 6550 without the potentially harmful TXT aspects, and none of the big component suppliers seem to be selling it.

I haven't been in the market for a pc/cpu upgrade in about 2.5 years now, but I'm ready....and I was almost ready to jump on a E6550 and then wham I start reading about TXT and suddenly I'm in a hold pattern thinking I better get a 6540 instead, but finding them difficult to locate, hence my post.

Rev

Thanks for the 2 sources posted earlier...I don't know either of those companies so....I'll have to think about trusting my money to an unknown vendor....I really try to stick to NewEgg Frys Buy and ZipZoomFly because of they're repuitable.
 

sutahz

Golden Member
Dec 14, 2007
1,300
0
0
At some point you had to trust your money to 'NewEgg Frys Buy and ZipZoomFly'
Maybe they dont carry the product because they are too big and there is no demand for the E6540. Depending on how bad you want this chip, depends on what 'risks' your willing to get it.
Someone shows you the source to aquire the chip of your desires, and you spit in their face.
 

Denithor

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2004
6,298
23
81
Interesting to note on the nowdirect.com site under features for this chip they list:

Enhanced SpeedStep technology, Execute Disable Bit capability, Intel Virtualization Technology, Intel 64 Technology, Intel Trusted Execution Technology

Is the TXT included or not? Could just be a typo I suppose.

And addressing buying from places like these: just make sure you use a credit card and you are covered. It may be a hassle but if there is a problem and they refuse to work with you to correct it, Visa/MC will guarantee the transaction and refund your money.
 

revolutn

Member
Dec 13, 2000
104
1
0
Originally posted by: sutahz
At some point you had to trust your money to 'NewEgg Frys Buy and ZipZoomFly'
Maybe they dont carry the product because they are too big and there is no demand for the E6540. Depending on how bad you want this chip, depends on what 'risks' your willing to get it.
Someone shows you the source to aquire the chip of your desires, and you spit in their face.

Slow your roll pal.

I am not spitting in anyone's face.

It's more a commentary on the normal vendors lack of stocking the part.

I said I appreciatated the sources, and I do.... sheesh.

You're not even the source, so your false outrage is particularly offensive...eh whatever I guess there's a troll in ever corner of every forum looking to stir up the sh!t and cause drama where there isn't any.

Rev
 

revolutn

Member
Dec 13, 2000
104
1
0
Originally posted by: Denithor
Interesting to note on the nowdirect.com site under features for this chip they list:

Enhanced SpeedStep technology, Execute Disable Bit capability, Intel Virtualization Technology, Intel 64 Technology, Intel Trusted Execution Technology

Is the TXT included or not? Could just be a typo I suppose.

And addressing buying from places like these: just make sure you use a credit card and you are covered. It may be a hassle but if there is a problem and they refuse to work with you to correct it, Visa/MC will guarantee the transaction and refund your money.

Yeah I've noted that both the sites show the chip's specs as including TXT.

However at Intel's processor chart, it clearly shows that the 6540 excludes TXT.
I rather suspect that since every other 1333FSB CPU has identical specs, the sites have simple used one css sheet or template.

http://compare.intel.com/pcc/s...0508,890509&familyID=1

Rev

 

gingerstewart55

Senior member
Sep 12, 2007
242
0
0
I still don't see the "potentially harmful TXT aspects" you are speaking about. You do realize that to make the TXT work, you have to have a motherboard with a TPM chip on it and actually have it enabled (they're typically disabled as a default setting.) So, unless you actually enable the TPM function on your motherboard, the dreaded TXT function in your cpu won't matter one whit.

As the article you linked to stated:

TXT is essentially a set of hardware extensions that work in conjunction with a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip and goes beyond the Non-execution bit that has been a feature on recent processors from both AMD and Intel. The TPM is disabled in the BIOS by default, as determined by the open specifications that are freely downloadable.


Do not enable the TPM chip and you defeat the TXT.
 

revolutn

Member
Dec 13, 2000
104
1
0
Originally posted by: gingerstewart55
I still don't see the "potentially harmful TXT aspects" you are speaking about. You do realize that to make the TXT work, you have to have a motherboard with a TPM chip on it and actually have it enabled (they're typically disabled as a default setting.) So, unless you actually enable the TPM function on your motherboard, the dreaded TXT function in your cpu won't matter one whit.

As the article you linked to stated:

TXT is essentially a set of hardware extensions that work in conjunction with a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip and goes beyond the Non-execution bit that has been a feature on recent processors from both AMD and Intel. The TPM is disabled in the BIOS by default, as determined by the open specifications that are freely downloadable.


Do not enable the TPM chip and you defeat the TXT.


Well....that is true when taken in the context of the entire Trusted Computing Platform initiative, however it's the potential other dangers lurking in HARDWARE enabled with TXT style 'security' that should concern enthusiasts.

Here's a rather interesting post in the comment section of that article, and a link to another reference article which does a better job of outlining the potential for abuse by the RIAA MIAA and MS in general, or any content owner for that matter.

This article discuses the DRM relationship to TXT:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html


Here's the post I referece above:

Max Spain 18th July 2007, 05:45
First of all, I would like to commend the author on a quality article. It is unique in that no other hw review site (that I am aware of) has gone as in-depth as bit-tech in covering TXT. I also believe that the appropriate approach was used in explaining and describing it - straight from Intel. I am personally very much against this initiative, and so I do have some additional suggestions/comments. While Trusted Computing's application for DRM was briefly mentioned, there are many other dangers from such a system.

As a prerequisite for any discussion on trusted computing, it helps to redefine our everyday meaning of trust. In this sense, a "trusted" computer is "a computer that behaves in an expected manner for a particular purpose." Richard Stallman calls it treacherous computing, but I prefer to think of it as controlled computing. The difference is that trust is a mutual realtionship, whereas control is not. You just have to ask yourself one question: Who is doing the controlling? This video does an excellent job of illustrating that fact.

Inside of a TPM, there is a unique, immutable endorsement key which harkens back to Intel's Processor ID from the Pentium 3 era. This allows a computer to be recognized remotely online. This can be used in a beneficial way for when you want to log into your bank account, e-mail account, online game, etc. It can also be used for DRM in lieu of Windows Media Player's globally unique ID number, or the machine ID's for Itunes, or for adware/spyware tracking user's browsing (pr0n) habits.

As this article mentioned, Trusted Computing can also be used to control which programs/files can be run/accessed/played at boot or inside the OS. There is a HUGE potential for not only vendor lock-in, but also the eradication of open source software. A computer with this type of a system would "measure" a file and match it with a list of certificates stored in the TPM, another storage device, or a remote party like Verisign before running it. The problems for open source software is that these certificates cost money. Free and Open Source Software would no longer be free. This also has implications for DRM. The MAFIAA, for example would not only be able to identify YOU (through your unique and immutable endorsement key) as the person trying to access their "content," but they will also receive your PCR's (Platform Configuration Registers, these describe your computer hardware and software configuration) so that they can determine what programs you are running (better have a licensed and uncompromised media player/operating system), and what hardware you are using (this way they know if your video card REALLY supports HDCP/PVP.)

Well, anyways, I'll take a break there. As you can tell, I am not a fan of the stuff. There are some good technologies in there, but they are implemented in a way that only makes sense for a DRM/global identification system. I'd really like to hear what all of you think about this. If you are interested and would like to learn more, I would suggest Ross Anderson's FAQ as a very comprehensive (if slightly outdated) reference.