998
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
998 points (99.5% liked)
Technology
59757 readers
3193 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Oh you mean they're going to underclock the expensive new shit I bought and have it underperform to fix their fuck up?
What an unacceptable solution.
That's where the lawsuits will start flying. I wouldn't be surprised if they knock off 5-15% of performance. That's enough to put it well below comparable AMD products in almost every application. If performance is dropped after sale, there's a pretty good chance of a class action suit.
Intel might have a situation here like the XBox 360 Red Ring of Death. Totally kills any momentum they had and hands a big victory to their competitor. This at a time when Intel wasn't in a strong place to begin with.
I think a spot that might land them in a bit of hot water will be what specs they use for the chips after the "fix". Will they update the specs to reflect the now slower speeds? My money would be them still listing the full chooch chip killing specs.
If people bought it at one spec and now it's lower, that could be enough. It would have made the decision different at purchase time.
It would be breach of implied warranty/false advertisement if they keep selling them with the old specs at least.
It has been wise for years to subtract 15-20% off Intel's initial performance claims and benchmarks at release. Spectre and Meltdown come to mind, for example. There's always some post-release patch that hobbles the performance, even when the processors are stable. Intel's corporate culture is to push the envelope just a little too far then walk it back quietly after the initial positive media coverage is taken care of.
Yes, but lucky for some of us that practice is still illegal in parts of the world. I just don't get why they still get away with it (they do get fines but the over all practice is still normalized).
I sure would not want any 13 or 14 gen Intel in any equipment I was responsible for. Think of the risk over any IT departments head with these CPUs in production, you would never really trust them again.
They aren't over clocking / under clocking anything with the fix. The chip was just straight up requesting more voltage than it actually needed, this didn't give any benefit and was probably an issue even without the damage it causes, due to extra heat generated.
Giving a CPU more voltage is just what overclocking is. Considering that most of these modern CPUs from both AMD and Intel have already been designed to start clocking until it reaches a high enough temp to start thermally throttling, it's likely that there was a misstep in setting this threshold and the CPU doesn't know when to quit until it kills itself. In the process it is undoubtedly gaining more performance than it otherwise would, but probably not by much, considering a lot of the high end CPUs already have really high thresholds, some even at 90 or 100 C.
If you actually knew anything you'd know that overclockers tend to manually reduce the voltage as they increase the clock speeds to improve stability, this only works up to a point, but clearly shows voltage does not directly influence clock speed.
Ah, got me with a reverse gish gallop. Now I'm an idiot, oh no...