this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

Technology

59587 readers
5236 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] arcosenautic@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

When will it stop? No really?

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 months ago

Vote with your wallet, go AMD

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It’s in the article; newer gen chips will have extra DRM that will prevent the hacks from working.

Oh, you meant when will the anti-hacks stop?

Bless your heart….

[–] Adanisi@lemmy.zip 0 points 5 months ago

DRM for CPUs.

All normal, nothing to see here, folks!

[–] mlg@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Turns out, the difference in the socket is just a few pins here and there, and you can make a 8th or 9th generation Coffee Lake CPU work on your Z170/270 board if you apply a few Kapton tape fixes and mod your BIOS,

Modders giving me a new reason to keep my ye olde z170 mobo instead of just making a new machine with all the nice hardware

[–] bappity@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

ANTI UPGRADE?? WHAT THE FUCK

[–] aard@kyu.de 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Intel is well known for requiring a new board for each new CPU generation, even if it is the same socket. AMD on the other hand is known to push stuff to its physical limits before they break compatibility.

[–] neo@lemy.lol 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

But why? Did Intel make a deal with the board manufacturers? Is this tradition from the days when they build boards themselves?

I thought they just didn't care and wanted as little restrictions for their chip design as possible, but if this actually works without drawbacks, that theory is out the window.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 0 points 5 months ago

guess who sells the chipsets to the motherboard manufacturers

[–] A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Just another instance of common anti-consumer behavior from multi billion dollar companies who have no respect for the customers that line their pockets.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

They've been pulling this shit since the early days. Similar tricks were employed in the 486 days to swap out chips, and again in the Celeron days. I think they switched to the slot style intentionally to keep selling chips to a point lol

[–] turmacar@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

It's been at least since the "big iron" days.

Technician comes out to upgrade your mainframe and it consists of installing a jumper to enable the extra features. For only a few million dollars.

[–] bappity@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)
[–] tal@lemmy.today 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000498114.pdf

Soviet Computer Technology: Little Prospect for Catching Up

We believe that there are many reasons why the Soviets trail the United States in computer technology:

  • The Soviets' centrally-planned economy does not permit adequate flexibility to design or manufacturing changes frequently encountered in computer production; this situation has often resulted in a shortage of critical components

especially for new products.

[–] GeneralVincent@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for the link to the unbiased study by... the CIA? Huh. Yeah I trust them.

[–] olympicyes@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The paper was from 1985. Was the CIA correct?

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 months ago

Marginally. The paper analyzes the capabilities as they existed in the 1980s, but doesn't draw strong conclusions as to why that may be. It does demonstrate how reliance on central planning results in inadequaciea when said central planning is not operating well, though.

The paper doesn't really mention it but the central planning of the USSR was actively reeling from Brezhnev dying, Andropov dying, and Chernenko either dying or about to die at the time the CIA thing was written. So yeah, correct is an accurate if imprecise way to put it.

[–] SpiceDealer@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Hackers are the only saving grace in this increasingly dystopian world.

[–] blarth@thelemmy.club 0 points 5 months ago

Reminds me of drawing lines on old AMD processors with graphite pencils.