Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel's anti-upgrade tricks defeated with Kapton tape

hackaday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 132 posts

Re: Intel's anti-upgrade tricks defeated with Kapton tape

#111

Post by a1369209993 »

l33tman wrote: post #47
litenboll wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anybody else wonders why a 0-ohm resistor is a thing, apparently it is because it makes it possible to install a jumper on printed circuit boards with the same equipment that is used for normal resistors. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-ohm_link

You put 0-ohms where you think you might at some point want to have something else there like a > 0 ohm resistor or an inductor (for EMI blocking for example), it's much easier to just reprogram the SMD robot than to make a new PCB.

That's accurate, but given the lack of words to the effect of "You can also put", it deserves the clarification that the most common something else is - as the parent suggested - a ∞-ohm resistor, either as a specific component or more commonly in the form of the absense of a component.

Re: Intel's anti-upgrade tricks defeated with Kapton tape

#112

Post by randomdata »

traverseda wrote: post #79
jeffhuys wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still, when you’re due for a new car and look for the newest of the newest, would you go with manufacturer A, who released their latest car 8 years ago, or manufacturer B, who released it 1 year ago? Incremental upgrades get so much hate around the internet (mostly about phones) by people having the version before it. Saying things like “ah they changed almost nothing! Why would I upgrade?!” While for instance me, on…

The one with a reliability data for the past 8 years. It's surprising to me that people would want to make a major financial decision like a car without knowing about its reliability history.

> It's surprising to me that people would want to make a major financial decision like a car without knowing about its reliability history.

Some people will always be surprising, but it is pretty clear that the pickup truck is the most purchased type of vehicle (in North America) exactly because they have a much better reliability track record as compared to most cars. This idea doesn't escape the typical buyer.

Re: Intel's anti-upgrade tricks defeated with Kapton tape

#114

Post by pieresqi »

pwg wrote: post #84
donatj wrote: post #35

What is the financial benefit to Intel in artificially limiting its CPU sockets like this? Logic and reason would have me believe they'd want to sell as many CPUs as possible, and keeping the socket compatible for as long as possible would seem logical. My thoughts on reasons they might have done this. I honestly have no idea, these are just uninformed guesses. - The Charitable Answer: There actually is some sort of…

> What is the financial benefit to Intel in artificially limiting its CPU sockets like this? They (Intel) also make the chipsets that go on the motherboards. So anyone who disposes of their old motherboard and buys a new motherboard because of this limitation results in: 1) new CPU sale to Intel 2) new chipset sale to Intel (indirect sale via the motherboard manufacturer) Given that a "new CPU" sale plus a "new mothe…

[dead]

Re: Intel's anti-upgrade tricks defeated with Kapton tape

#115

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #107
immibis wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One reason I chose to buy the lowest-end Threadripper instead of the highest end Ryzen. In the future, even if there's never any compatibility with socket sTR5, the parts in the same generation provide a part-by-part upgrade path up to 96 cores, 1TB of RAM (or was it 2TB? I forget), and 128 PCIe lanes.

I would prefer 4 really powerful cores to 96 weaker cores in a CPU though.

That's going to certainly depend a lot on the tasks you do.

An embarrassingly parallel task would work better in the weak 96 cores than 4 strong cores unless those strong cores were literally 24 times more powerful, or if pegging 96 cores causes RAM to be a significant bottleneck.

Re: Intel's anti-upgrade tricks defeated with Kapton tape

#116

Post by 4jertdhf »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #86
_the_inflator wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same goes for most cars. No real revolution, tweaks or changes due to regulatory demands, but nothing groundbreaking.

I mean I can't speak to ICE cars, but electric cars ranges seem to scale pretty dramatically with how new they are.

There hasn't been significant combustion engine efficiency changes in a long time. My scrapbox from 2007 still goes 550 miles on a tank of diesel, about the same as my 1997 car did before it.

Re: Intel's anti-upgrade tricks defeated with Kapton tape

#117

Post by Laforet »

qball wrote: post #101
Laforet wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel actually intended for LGA1151 to remain unchanged for Coffee Lake but found out late in the testing process that many existing motherboards did not have enough power delivery capability to support the planned 6 and 8 core parts. Hence the decision to lock them out in software only. They are probably aware of the bad optics but decided that it’s better than trying to deal with the RMAs later. It’s very similar t…

> LGA1155: Major change to integrated GPU, also fixed the weird pin assignment of LGA1156 which made board layout a major pain. Of course, the P67 chipset was trivially electrically compatible with LGA1156 CPUs; Asrock's P67 Transformer motherboard proved that conclusively. That said, the main problem with 1155 was their locking down the clock dividers, so the BCLK overclocking you could do with 1156 platforms was co…

> P67 chipset was trivially electrically compatible with LGA1156 CPUs

Well it’s possible to shoehorn in support for the determined but iGPU support is definitely out of reach and I am not sure what segment of the market is that targeted to. Seems like an excuse for AsRock to get rid of their excess stock. The socket change was actually very well received by everybody in the industry.

> Haswell was a generation with ~0% IPC uplift so no big loss there

You are right that FIVR did not last long in that particular iteration. However Haswell does have a 10% to 30% IPC advantage over the previous gen depending on the test[1].

Haswell also added AVX2 instructions which means that it will still run the latest games whereas anything older is up to the whims of the developer (and sometimes denuvo, sadly)

https://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-670...

Re: Intel's anti-upgrade tricks defeated with Kapton tape

#118

Post by tyre »

randomdata wrote: post #112
traverseda wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The one with a reliability data for the past 8 years. It's surprising to me that people would want to make a major financial decision like a car without knowing about its reliability history.

> It's surprising to me that people would want to make a major financial decision like a car without knowing about its reliability history. Some people will always be surprising, but it is pretty clear that the pickup truck is the most purchased type of vehicle (in North America) exactly because they have a much better reliability track record as compared to most cars. This idea doesn't escape the typical buyer.

> it is pretty clear that the pickup truck is the most purchased type of vehicle (in North America) exactly because they have a much better reliability track record as compared to most cars

The pickup truck is also deeply engrained in American culture as masculine, even if the owner does nothing that requires it.

Re: Intel's anti-upgrade tricks defeated with Kapton tape

#119

Post by chmod775 »

> Contrasting this to AMD’s high degree of CPU support on even old Ryzen motherboards, it’s as if Intel introduced this incompatibility intentionally.

That is because they introduced it intentionally.

They don't give a rat's ass about how this screws people over and creates e-waste. Pencil pushers at Intel just couldn't figure out how to put consumer goodwill on a balance sheet.

Re: Intel's anti-upgrade tricks defeated with Kapton tape

#120

Post by godelski »

pwg wrote: post #84
donatj wrote: post #35

What is the financial benefit to Intel in artificially limiting its CPU sockets like this? Logic and reason would have me believe they'd want to sell as many CPUs as possible, and keeping the socket compatible for as long as possible would seem logical. My thoughts on reasons they might have done this. I honestly have no idea, these are just uninformed guesses. - The Charitable Answer: There actually is some sort of…

> What is the financial benefit to Intel in artificially limiting its CPU sockets like this? They (Intel) also make the chipsets that go on the motherboards. So anyone who disposes of their old motherboard and buys a new motherboard because of this limitation results in: 1) new CPU sale to Intel 2) new chipset sale to Intel (indirect sale via the motherboard manufacturer) Given that a "new CPU" sale plus a "new mothe…

Not to mention that they know people have to upgrade, and in not that long of a time (5 years-ish?).

The strategy doesn't work if it was something like a car where the lifespan is 20+ years, but with high turnover they have people over a barrel. Now AMD competes, but I think we forget that this is a new thing (and likely because if you're on HN, you're deep in this environment). So the big question is: will Intel continue, or will they recognize that they don't have the choice anymore. That is, of course, as long as AMD decides to not play the same game.

Post reply on HN