<a href="http://teksyndicate.com/teksupport><img src="
Get over and check out the store! Epic Pants
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://teksyndicate.com/videos/rant30-intel-removes-non-k-overclocking-after-fact
9 Likes
A most glorious return for Rant:30.
3 Likes
Does fullscreen work for anyone?
Yup
Weird. Doesn't work for me EDIT: It works here, not from the home page
1 Like
I wait to see what AMDs response will be to this witht eh new line, I wonder will they pull the same thing.
This is a very shady and extremely anti consumer. I wonder would it be grounds for some sort of lawsuit. As fro what should be done, well anyone who can and is in a position to do so should jump on Intel's toes.
I don't think AMD would do something like this, simply because they cannot afford to "Fuck Up" at this point of time. Zen and Polaris is the "End Game" or the last Straw in "AMD's Cup" and let's be realistic there hasn't been a non-black edition for a long time. i don't even think you can get those parts unless it's from an OEM pre-built PC of some sort. if something like that even existed anyways.
Fullscreen works for me, using Chrome.
Btw, first Vessel video and its alrite, plus 0.5 speed Wendell becomes pretty funny. :D
I wish the cows didn't have to come back.
Yeah its stinky move from intel.
But of course it was sorta kinda to be expected.
Asrock allready announced to bring out bios updates for their boards that will lock down bclk overclocking on non K sku´s.
And it wont probably take very long for others to follow.
I can't get it to work from the home page either. Works from the forums.
ASRock kills Non-K overclocking in a BIOS update.
http://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/ASRock-Releases-BIOS-Disable-Non-K-Skylake-Overclocking
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/asrock-removes-sky-oc,31147.html
I hope Intel will be reminded of this scandal for years to come, as this is Way worse then NVIDIA's "970 Memory Structure Limitations" as this could take your $200 i5-6400T from excellent to fairly useless, for gameing.
I don't get that people are saying this was to be expected, i think it's a scandal, but maybe im just ignorant.
edit: yes i know the i5-6400T is a extreme example but we use to overclock i7-920 2.66 GHz to 4.X GHz
Idk if it's a scandal, I'd call it just straight up scummy
I missed this so much. Rant 30, welcome home :')
Rant:30 and Logan is wearing a Blazer. Brings back good memories.
I loved my Celeron 300A. Its what hooked me into overclocking and buying chips that are good for overclocking.
I was a little frustrated with the description of micro-code because micro-code has always been there, and I feel like most of us should know that. It's how the machine code is translated into macrocode, which is a little lower level than RISC instructions, and that stuff is basic 16-18yo digital principles stuff. (I remember the OND B-TECs on it)
Anyhoo, maybe younglings don't get taught that low level stuff any more, IDK. I certainly remember the iNHEL Pentagram which we joked was called that instead of 80586 because the error in it's ALU couldn't add 100 to 80486. lolololololol and a great time was had by all. (especially AMD, Cyrex and Evergreen et el)
1) @wendell knows, I'm sure, that the situation where a bug is used to exploit the systems security is far worse than one which just locks the thing up with a kernel panic (BSOD) or reboot. That was what kept business purchasing 486 processors for the enterprise servers and avoiding anything with the dreaded "Pentium" brand for so long after the unfixable bug. My memory was that 486 or "alternate brand" processors were used up until the release of the Pentium II when we had a reliable way of knowing we weren't going to get a bugged chip in a mission critical system. At this point, "Flashing" your BIOS also literally meant pulling the chip off the motherboard, removing a sticky label off the top and bathing it for 24hrs in a UV lightbox before clamping it in a PROM blower and re-blowing the UV fused NAND gates. XD
2) Actually, the most worrying thing which you all skirted over in this video is the idea that people will avoid micro-code updates for fear that they may cause system instability rather than actually fix an issue, because fear is more powerful than hope once it sets in and if we're all avoiding fixing potential security flaws in our systems out of paranoia set in motion to satisfy some marketing gurus wet dream... This is a very bhad thing.
Okay, so you can argue that nobody actually overclocks enterprise grade hardware if they have any sense but actually, the CEOs Windows tablet is actually a far greater security risk than the back office servers in the data centre. (because, hopefully, they never wander outside the corporate firewall to do some work in the local Starbucks and hook into the free WiFi that comes with the coffee there... and aren't directly operated by someone who doesn't really know what VPN means except that it lets him work on his corporate files from Starbucks) The point being, if that tablet happens not to be a Surface or something directly made by Intel because the CEO happens to really like the ZenBook or such, then there is every chance that ASUS / ACER or whoever has overclocked (or more likely underclocked) the processor to achieve a different power profile to suit their market strategy. Again, if the CEOs tablet starts going BSOD for no apparent reason, it's not going to be his fault, or Intels, or Microsofts. (or ASUS or Acer or whoever... though, actually, I would probably argue that they are selling systems with unstable modified Intel components, but I would know that isn't how I feel about it) It will be the fault of the likes of you and me boys and girls. (well, the likes of me, at any rate; and I hope I'm not alone in that regard among this community) It's because we didn't protect our CEO from Intel and his own stupidity.
3 Likes
Another very typical example of a big company exploiting its consumers for profit simply because it can.
Moves like this really hold us all back as a species, at least how this kinds of behavior is deemed acceptable from a legal standpoint.
1 Like
move it to 2x and there is a wendellbot on screen.
Well, I'm still on the side of "this is a very bad thing" but if I can play Devils Advocate for a moment... Rigorous testing of CPUs must be one of the more expensive aspects of their manufacture, and without it you simply can't afford to provide as much support. (remembering that some of these units will end up in stock exchanges and miscalculations could result in high cost legal proceedings)
I think it is acceptable for Intel to provide the same physical chip at a different cost based upon the level of support and warranty / assurance that comes with it. However, if you throw what little warranty you have to the wind by using it beyond it's published tolerance I feel like you should be able to do that.
If I design a bridge to withstand a 2 tonne truck crossing it in high winds and you buy that bridge from me, when you come winging to me the your bridge fell into the ocean while you ran 2 2 tonne trucks over it in high winds I can legitimately laugh in your face and say "And? So? You're an idiot. What else is new?" with no further legal repercussions. (and probably just as much repeat trade but...)
I presume Intel can, and have always been able to do the same with people who pop CPUs by overclocking them. (I suspect there is a thing where they clock back to normal before making an RMA which is also bad but, what are you gonna do?)