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

51–60 of 132 posts

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

#51

Post by lithos »

jsheard wrote: post #13
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.

You rarely see those kinds of unlocks anymore unfortunately, since they started using eFuses to disable parts of the chip permanently. It still happens occasionally though, like the time when AMD decided to add a 4GB SKU alongside the originally planned 8GB SKU of one of their graphics cards so late in development that they didn't have time to actually change the hardware, so all of the initial batches had 8GB instal…

IBM servers this was the default as well. Where the difference between ram amounts on AS400 systems was a phone call to enable more.

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

#52

Post by gregmac »

grandinj wrote: post #36
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…

It costs money to validate a new processor on an old motherboard, and no corp wants to waste money on a product they have already sold.

This is my thought, too.

I'd bet customer perception is also a factor; there's a risk the old boards (not even made by Intel) die and cause problems, and Intel wouldn't want to deal with press/comments like "This CPU stopped working after 2 months" or "I installed this new CPU, and within 2 months it killed my motherboard that had been working fine for 7 years".

They've released CPU upgrades with the same socket before, I'm sure they have the sales data to know how that performs vs new socket.

Laptops have outsold desktops for well over a decade, and their CPUs pretty much non-upgradable. I can't easily find a nice chart to reference, but intuition tells me the desktop industry is similarly trending towards complete "system" sales vs individual parts. In other words: Most people don't upgrade their CPU, they upgrade by replacing the entire system. If true, this also means the socket would be almost entirely irrelevant to sales performance.

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

#53

Post by ielillo »

terlisimo wrote: post #23
jsheard wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You rarely see those kinds of unlocks anymore unfortunately, since they started using eFuses to disable parts of the chip permanently. It still happens occasionally though, like the time when AMD decided to add a 4GB SKU alongside the originally planned 8GB SKU of one of their graphics cards so late in development that they didn't have time to actually change the hardware, so all of the initial batches had 8GB instal…

Honorable mention of ATI Radeon 9600 that was soft-upgradeable (via hacked drivers) to 9800 PRO for a 200% perf boost. Good times.

Actually it was the Ati Radeon 9500 non pro that could be modded into a Radeon 9700. Regarding the ATI Radeon 9600, there was a variant called Radeon 9550 that could be overclocked from 250 mhz to 400 mhz.

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

#54

Post by pessimizer »

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…

I would say that Intel is a company, not a person, and isn't motivated but directed. If the same people own both Intel and the mobo manufacturers, they win by forcing new purchases of new products primarily distinguished by a higher price.

One computer owner in a thousand upgrades their processor alone, or would even know how to.

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

#55

Post by jeffhuys »

_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.

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, only on my 3rd smartphone EVER, would love all the incremental updates over the years when I finally decide I need a new one, because I always get the latest and greatest. If a company then doesn’t release anything for a few years, I’d go somewhere else.

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

#56

Post by nottorp »

> Don’t get too excited though, as projects like Intel BootGuard are bound to hamper mods like this on newer generations by introducing digital signing for BIOS images, flying under the banner of user security yet again. Alas, it appears way more likely that Intel’s financial security is the culprit.

It's okay, soon we'll lock down all software too in the name of security.

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

#57

Post by utensil4778 »

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 sells the chipset that goes along with the processor, as well as selling their own motherboards. I think the profit incentive here is obvious.

Why sell just a CPU when you can sell a CPU and a chipset and a motherboard?

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

#58

Post by lazide »

_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.

Luckily it’s not common to need to replace your garage every time you get a new car.

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

#59

Post by ikekkdcjkfke »

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…

I am going to use this listing in my pre-prompt

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

#60

Post by jsheard »

lithos wrote: post #51
jsheard wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You rarely see those kinds of unlocks anymore unfortunately, since they started using eFuses to disable parts of the chip permanently. It still happens occasionally though, like the time when AMD decided to add a 4GB SKU alongside the originally planned 8GB SKU of one of their graphics cards so late in development that they didn't have time to actually change the hardware, so all of the initial batches had 8GB instal…

IBM servers this was the default as well. Where the difference between ram amounts on AS400 systems was a phone call to enable more.

Having dormant hardware which is intended to be unlockable later is a separate thing, which is rarely seen on consumer hardware. Intel tried it a while ago but the backlash was so severe that they gave up and reverted to permanently fusing off the silicon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Upgrade_Service

I believe they still have something similar which allows Xeon processors to be upgraded in the field though. Car manufacturers have been testing the waters too, e.g. installing heated seats in every model and making them a paid software unlock for lower end models that didn't have that option enabled from the factory.

Post reply on HN