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

121–130 of 132 posts

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

#121

Post by randomdata »

tyre wrote: post #118
randomdata wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes, it seems most products that gain a reputation for reliability end up taking on a "masculine persona", of sorts. Which I guess stands to reason as in popular culture reliability is what defines the "manly man".

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

#122

Post by sitkack »

nehal3m wrote: post #108
Zambyte wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> continued software support Unfortunately due to the extremely minimal software rights that exist (see: proprietary software) this is pretty much nonexistent in cars AFAIK. I would rather get a car that is old enough to not be limited by software constraints. Which is pretty disappointing, because I actually really like electric cars. I think they would work well for my needs. But they are all so intentionally kneec…

I would love a super bare bones electric car. One that functions the same as any late 90s/early 2000s era car would, except with an electric power train and maybe cruise control.

2011-2013? Nissan Leaf fits the bill.

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

#123

Post by StimDeck »

benreesman wrote: post #19
scrlk wrote: post #2

Reminds me of the "pencil trick" to overclock CPUs in the late 90s/early 00s. You'd rub a pencil over contacts on the CPU to bridge them, which would unlock the clock multiplier.

Likewise the felt marker on DVDs during the DRM Wars.

I feel like I should know what this is a presence to.

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

#124

Post by StimDeck »

userbinator wrote: post #21

It's interesting how the pins differ between motherboard manufacturers, which suggests they didn't copy Intel's reference schematics completely or used different revisions of them. They used to publish the reference schematics on their site up until the P4 era, but I guess it made things like this too easy.

Makes sense in the slow slide of anti repair.

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

#125

Post by Cold_Miserable »

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…

Intel makes money selling motherboard chipsets. There's no excuse, just greed.

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

#126

Post by londons_explore »

sitkack wrote: post #122
nehal3m wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love a super bare bones electric car. One that functions the same as any late 90s/early 2000s era car would, except with an electric power train and maybe cruise control.

2011-2013? Nissan Leaf fits the bill.

This.

It's so thoroughly reverse engineered that if you decided you wanted to reconfigure the software so it would only drive at prime numbered miles per hour, you could.

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

#128

Post by xxs »

Laforet wrote: post #66
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…

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…

>many existing motherboards did not have enough power delivery capability to support the planned 6 and 8 core part

Coffee lake's 8700k had 6 core not 8, the refresh lake-s did feature 8 cores. The release TDP of 8700k was the same as 6700k - 95W, of course it consumed more at peak, and when overclocked.

The support would still depend on the motherboard manufacturers adding the CPU support (along w/ the microcode) to their BIOS. Many high-end boards, e.g asrock z170 extreme6/7, would have supported 8700k.

The situation is no different today that many (most) boards do not top support top end processors anyways, due to poor VRMs, even when the socket is the same. (or if they support the CPUs are effectively power throttled)

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

#129

Post by constantcrying »

_the_inflator wrote: post #49
fizzynut wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel basically made the same CPU for about 6 years straight because of 10nm process issues. They had to keep pretending the next gen "Lake" CPU was substantially different from the last, so they just took last gen product, made some minor tweaks to break compatibility and called it a new generation

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

Cars don't get a new model every year. They are even called "facelifts" to make it clear that it is essentially the same with minor modifications and upgrades.

Also there isn't much "groundbreaking" you can do in a car, except for the EV switch, the industry has existed on many small upgrades over time. (Like many other industries)

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

#130

Post by constantcrying »

nehal3m wrote: post #108
Zambyte wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> continued software support Unfortunately due to the extremely minimal software rights that exist (see: proprietary software) this is pretty much nonexistent in cars AFAIK. I would rather get a car that is old enough to not be limited by software constraints. Which is pretty disappointing, because I actually really like electric cars. I think they would work well for my needs. But they are all so intentionally kneec…

I would love a super bare bones electric car. One that functions the same as any late 90s/early 2000s era car would, except with an electric power train and maybe cruise control.

Those cars are essentially illegal to sell in many countries.
Post reply on HN