"Intel Software Defined Silicon" Coming To Linux For Activating Extra Licensed Hardware Features

[stormcrow]

By the name I almost thought this was like an FPGA inside the processor, but it appears to be more like.... yes, that previous failed upgrade program.

Did Intel seriously not learn from its past mistakes?

They're hoping people will look the other way this time. Just like the fight for privacy and a right to repair, eventually enough individuals tired of fighting it (Microsoft Windows), or there's enough "new shiny" to it (Google, Apple) that people give in.

[artivision]

Don't imagine magical upgrades. It only works if the silicon was there from the begining. For example if 2 cores where deactivated to make a 6 core processor. Maybe activation of extra cache, hyper threading, overclocking. Activation of blocked AVX futures and similar stuff. I personally find it useful if the prices are right for a used part and if the silicon can take it (same futures are deactivated due to bad silicon anyway).

[scratchi]

If the upstream Linux kernel refused to support it, what damage would it cause? Its not like Intel can drop Linux support and just suffice with Windows. Linux is too big now.

I almost feel like it is damaging to everyone (apart from Intel) for the kernel to accept this into its codebase. If everyone said no, Intel will have to at least wait another decade before they try this monetization (DRM) strategy again.

I really hope Linus see's it this way as well and refuses to merge this shit.

With all the recent CPU vulnerabitlities being discovered since meltdown and spectre, especially in Intel CPUs, this will definitely be a big target.

[Inopia]

CPU and GPU vendors have artificially limited good silicon for ages when doing market segmentation when the lower end models sell better. Over the years there's been a bunch of models where a simple mod had a good chance of unlocking extra features. This could be seen as an attempt to allow selling to different market segmets but allowing unlocking if needed without having to just waste working silicon because they sold more low end models than they had defective silicon to bin into that segment.

[andre30correia]

CPU and GPU vendors have artificially limited good silicon for ages when doing market segmentation when the lower end models sell better. Over the years there's been a bunch of models where a simple mod had a good chance of unlocking extra features. This could be seen as an attempt to allow selling to different market segmets but allowing unlocking if needed without having to just waste working silicon because they sold more low end models than they had defective silicon to bin into that segment.

different case, hardware with problems who is sold as low end is a good pratice, this way they dont wast chips, putting out good hardware with lock its a wast of hardware, in a world with a serious problem, and a climate change this another joke, like saying tesla is a good company. I refuse to buying such hardware and linux and other should block this

[oiaohm]

different case, hardware with problems who is sold as low end is a good pratice, this way they dont wast chips, putting out good hardware with lock its a wast of hardware, in a world with a serious problem, and a climate change this another joke, like saying tesla is a good company. I refuse to buying such hardware and linux and other should block this

This is a mixed bag. Putting out a chip designed with a lock vs laser binning vs fuse able links.
1) laser binning you take a perfectly good chip and down grade it into a lower market part by in fact using a laser to modify the silicon in a non reversible way.
2) fuse able links are basically apply high voltage in a particular area to basic fuse out a link this is most common non revertible. This of course results in the same thing feature removed for good.
3) software feature locking.

Software feature locking commonly get hacked. Remember have seen it with the raspberry pi with mpeg decode due to patents and to keep chip cost low to also use a software locking out of that feature.

Software locking has advantages on features that patent is going expire. So that you can give the person the hardware now and people who need the feature now can pay the patent cost and when the patent runs out provide the key to everyone for free.

The reality it is all depends how Intel uses it. It would be interest if a company did a early adopter tax as in like for the first 3 of a chips lift to use all its functionality you had to pay a extra fee and once that time was up the unlocking code would be opened to everyone.

Software define silicon is not a new thing either for Intel. Its really simple to forget the Intel Microcode.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-disables-tsx-default-microcode-updates

Yes Intel has used microcode at time to downgrade a processor functionality on the fused in link processor ID. So a Intel Software Define Silicon driver is more Intel openly admit what functionality the silicon has and give you the end user the right to spend money to unlock functionality they have chosen to disable instead of buying new silicon.

Yes the old systems if laser, fuse links and microcode disabling features in a lot of ways is wasteful because people have to throw away a bit of silicon to get the extra functionally that were perfect in the silicon but were disable to be able to fill the lower end of the market supply demands.

I would prefer none things thing happen and instead market price really be set by supply but that has not happened for decades now due to binning and disabling. Yes disabling a higher end chip to make a lower end part.

Remember once you get into the old second hard market the lower end chips generally end up going to scrap and the higher end chips generally remain on sale for quite some time. So depending on how Intel manages this software locking of feature it could be good for the environment by having it that once a chip is over X years old and it was fully functional chip and was just downgrade to fill the supply demand in the lower cost market it will unlocked so it does not go into the garbage bin as soon it will be a good thing for the environment.

[muncrief]

Yikes!!!

That's pretty rotten.

But Intel has been insatiably rotten and unfathomably greedy and immoral since its inception.

So if people still buy Intel instead of AMD, after all their decades of sleaze, they're going to knowingly get what they deserve.

I mean really, imagine where we'd be if AMD hadn't come along to save us from Intel.

We'd be paying $2,000 for a dual core 2 GHz single threaded CPU.

[bachchain]

Weird. Normally, you would wait until you had a competitive product before nickel-and-diming your customers.

[oiaohm]

Weird. Normally, you would wait until you had a competitive product before nickel-and-diming your customers.

Can be issue of lack of competitive product that causes this as well. Remember not all features in a intel processor own to intel. Fused out or not enabled Intel can avoid having to pay the patent license on those sections.

The reality is this is a multi way to this nickel and diming.

1) to reduce the money Intel has to pay to IP holders so they can sell silicon at lower price.
2) is to kind of get more money out of end users.
3) reduce warehouse space.

Remember if you have used laser or fuseable link binning you cannot reverse it so you need more stock piles of chips in the warehouse to be sure to meet orders.

Lack of highly competitive product reduces means to take warehouse space overhead cost is reduced.

Lack of competitive product reduces the amount of in advance payments you can make to IP holders. Yes that IP Holder problem can put in you a horrible location if you don't have the option of software enabling disabled feature were you maybe doing the fuseable links or laser binning the chips because you just cannot afford the IP bill and be profitable on this product line. IP/patent licensing normally is the products with X feature enabled you have to pay for. This includes the ones sitting in the warehouse that you have not sold yet.

Now you have a non competitive product and having to pay the patent license on all the stock in the warehouse including the ones that don't sell does alter your point of view. This can be a big enough difference between the non competitive product been loss leader(as in cost company money) to being at cost production(as in you have made no profit but you have made no loss either yet you have kept yourself in the market doing R&D).

Remember adding a software enabled feature to the chip and having the feature disabled out the box results that you don't have to pay the patent license until end user buy the upgrade to unlock the feature.

This form of silicon disable but allow software enabled is common with lot of smaller arm silicon makers where the patent costs come a problem. We really have not see a big player need to-do this.

Question is why is Intel doing this. Yes how deep of sales hole is Intel really in.

[mos87]

RMS was spot on re this stuff.