7point5

so as many of you probably know, i7 CPUs ain't better than i5 CPUs their just different with different strong points & weak points for i7 the weak point is that they totally suck in single-thread apps where they get owned by an i5 (even a "high end" skylake gets beat by an Ivy bridge with a lower clock how about that lol) and the only "fix" so far is reboot, go into bios & disable hyperthreading (cause for some reason it's impossible to disable HT "on the fly"). and then reboot & reenable HT for gaming (basically it's technologically impossible so far to make a cpu that is good in both single- & multi- threading) so my question is anyone found a fix to improve i7 performance in single thread without having to reboot & change Bios settings?

is there a way of knowing which updates have telemetry & which ones don't? (and a way to block it)

I've a router between my pc & the wall will that do? (will the router still see traffic that the ME hides from windows?) if I was a hacker/dealer/terrorist/whatever then I'd have nothing to be concerned about (it's not the guilty who've anything to fear nowadays) come to think of it I should've been a hacker :/ on the other hand I don't like the idea of my pc being turned into a zombie or spam relay or something because of crap ME & its vulnerabilities or Intel themselves using ME to steal my personal info then selling it to their commercial partners

anyway offtopic politics always fun but - any answer to my questions perchance? 1) 2)

facebook u kidding right? I'll be damned if I ever use this sh I'd also elaborate on the sort of fate I wish befalls the corrupt POS who founded this (hey one can only hope) but it'd be probably violate forum rules :/ and I only use M$ cause it's the only OS for gaming so no choice there either (else I'd only have Linux on my HD) but hey I totally understand your viewpoint I mean, morality's proportionate to wealth so obviously megacorps can do no wrong & only an anarcho-communist™ would think otherwise, and who are we the commonfolk to judge the elites & doubt their purely altruistic intents, etc. etc. so how about this I get the tin/aluminium hat, and you drop w/e you're doing & go work in coal (that's what the elites want us to do now apparently) deal?

lol Apple got like 3x the a$$ets of Intel so their even more dishonest

k so that's yet another question: if ME has lowest level access to network cards does this mean they can hide their traffic so that even Netstat doesn't show it?

k thx now this a tricky question: I read that the ME has "super low level access to network card" so my question is, without vpro can ME still use my network card to connect to the web & dial home or does it need vpro/AMT to do so? (basically my question is can Intel still use their backdoor even without vpro)

suppose I install a very recent non-Intel Ethernet card (more recent then the ME drivers) will ME still be able to access the network? any way of preventing it from doing so? (I read that blocking traffic in router is useless but they dont explain why)

if a CPU don't have vPro (like the K versions of 2600 or 7700) does this mean it won't have MEI? or at least it won't have AMT? (the dangerous part of MEI with the exploits & backdoors & vulnerabilities & sh) ps. I googled this extensively & only get contradictory answers so no one seem to know :/

I read that not reassuring in a nutshell they say it's for remote administration in other words something the average customer not only doesn't need but also doesn't want it also doesn't say what happens if I don't install drivers - - - Updated - - - btw what if I install a non-Intel separate pci-e NIC card this one should be off limits for the ME right?

that's the thing I've had windows operate for far longer than 30mn without the MEI drivers installed & it didn't shutdown so what's the difference with MEI drivers installed or not? without going into politics (much as it's tempting)...I know it's easy to side with Intel cause it is Intel so with such a yuge revenue this megacorporation obviou$ly can only have good intent & it'd be very commie to think otherwise & blabla - but still: if you're not guilty you've nothing to hide no? so why hide what it does? why the f does it need direct access to the NIC? in fact why include this crap at all? for the customer? lol performance? it's been shown to hinder performance so try again security? more bollox it's been shown to lower security not improve it (more points of failure & more exploits cf. 11/2017) so...now that's it's established it's just useless bloatware (like that wasn't bloody obvious)...what's the only explanation left? what's the simplest explanation? Occam's razor, heard of? and why omit a simple option in Bios to disable it like AMD recently did with theirs? care to explain that one?

so what happens if I don't install the drivers of Intel's MEI? these turds never gave an option to disable MEI in Bios (unlike AMD which gave the option to disable PSP) so since it can't be disabled in Bios, what if I just don't install the drivers in windows? 1) if I don't install MEI drivers will this disable the MEI itself? will it disable all the built-in backdoors & spyware & what not? can any techie here confirm? 2) what are the other consequences of not installing drivers? (aside from the unknown "pci simple controller" device appearing in device list) will this prevent some apps from running? mess up speedfan probe readings? increase/decrease gaming performance? etc.

but windowsPE + imageX is only file-based right? I read to many incidents about those apps skipping key items that Ghost didn't miss during backup is there any sector-based (ie. reliable) backup solution? (more advanced than Ghost I mean since Ghost is also sector based) maybe cause file systems havent evolved since then (still NTFS) Ghost has never failed me so far ("if it ain't broke" etc.) but if there's something identical in function to Ghost & more recent then I'm good

(though maybe I should've bolded it) besides even the security reason doesn't make that much sense: pagefile exists during the entire time my PC is on, what if someone hacks it then? if security were a real concern then there should be no pagefile at all even while the PC's running and while we're at it no private data should be stored on the PC either (no mails or cookies or anything). hackers don't need to look into the pagefile to extract private data I know: my query is whether this can be done quickly (by deleting instead of wiping) anyway mine is a primitive backing solution (Ghost) : it requires that you first boot into some sort of simple command-line OS (which they called DOS) and from there, startup Ghost & backup the OS (you can't backup a running OS from within a running OS apparently since data on the active partition changes constantly so you have to first boot in DOS) and guess what: since windows is on an NTFS drive, it's impossible to access & delete files from within DOS on an NTFS partition (DOS doesn't even see NTFS partitions. if I'm in DOS & I even try to change drive letter to an NTFS partition, DOS will say "abort, retry, fail" or something) so unless anyone knows of a "super DOS" which can actually see NTFS partitions...???

so I just discovered what may be one of the dumbest design choices ever if this is true: when configuring windows to clear the pagefile on shutdown (by flipping the ClearPageFileAtShutdown value in registry to 1) windows actually overwrites the entire file (with zeroes probably) so obviously when that file's several gigs then it takes several minutes to shutdown anyone found a way to instead tell windows to simply delete it instead? (like users can do by right-clicking delete with the mouse or typing "del pagefile.sys" in command line) PS. I wanna delete that damn file on shutdown NOT for security reasons but practicality: so that when backing up with Ghost I don't have to delete it manually (which isn't possible to do in command line outside windows anyway) also I've read that starting windows without previous pagefile seems to slightly improve performance or something, dunno if that's true

btw I realize only someone with the highest level of tech knowledge can truly answer this so if there's any IT senior engineers reading this maybe they could provide a definite answer?

(k thx apparently the "enhanced editor" sux I switched to standard) I know I meant not the extra features I only meant in terms of raw power ok a concrete example: imagine a z87 board (ie. meant for Haswell CPU) and imagine it's flashed to support Broadwell CPU (which is also LGA1150 like Haswell, but is originally meant for z97 boards) now imagine I put the most powerful i7 Broadwell CPU on that z87 board, then run a game that can use the full power of that CPU >> the only question is: will there be a lower framerate, compare to that same CPU on a z97 board?

to elaborate: since a given socket can cover 2 generations of chipsets/mainboards (for instance LGA1155 CPUs like Sandy & Ivy are handled by both P67 boards (with bios update) and H77/Z77 boards, and LGA1150 CPUs like Haswell & Broadwell are handled by both z87 boards (with bios update) and h97/z97 boards), question is: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ if a newer cpu is put on an board with previous generation chipset (after having updated bios) will there be a performance loss/bottleneck caused by the older board? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ for instance if I put a broadwell cpu on a haswell board (by that I mean a z87 chipset board) or an ivy cpu on a sandy board (eg. p67 chipset) can the cpu still be used to its full power or will there be a performance loss compared to the same cpu on the next generation chipset board? (the generation that was developed at the same period as the cpu: z77 for ivys, z97 for broadwells) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PS. and by performance I mean only the ones users care about: framerate in 3D games, raw computing power like compression & divx encoding, u get the picture ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PPS. and to make the question worthwhile let's assume the most powerful CPU is being used for that socket (eg. an intel i7 3xxx or i7 5xxx with 4 real cores & 8 virtual cores with HT enabled in bios) ________________________________________________ _____________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ again I researched this extensively & can conclude that no one on the internet knows the answer to this +_- ______________________________________________________________________________________________ btw apologies for the underscores apparently the forum can't even handle the return character. lol

ok so even if I don't install RDP itself how come windows *allows* installation of the update msu even though the update's already in the rollup? why doesn't it say "update not applicable" or "update already installed" what about other updates like KB2639308? https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/2639308/an-update-is-available-for-the-aslr-feature-in-windows-7-or-in-windows it's suppose to be in the rollup yet windows allows installation of that update even after the rollup...???

simple question really: in the catalog article on kb3125574 all the allegedly included updates are listed so knowing them I decided to test this ^^ turns out my hunch may have been justified! for instance KB2639308 is in the list of updates allegedly included in the rollup so once again on a 7 x64 virtual machine (in virtualbox) I installed the service stack update & the rollup then I tried installing KB2639308 - and it worked! windows asks if I want to install the update even though it's supposed to be already installed with the rollup! (instead of saying "update already installed" or "update not applicable" as would be expected) therefore the only explanation's that this update was NOT included in the rollup to begin with right? I further tested & it appears MS may have lied about other elements in the list for instance several updates required for RDP 8 & 8.1 (because the rollup only comes with RDP 7.1) one of those requirements is KB2574819 which is also supposedly included in the rollup - in fact it's the very first element in the rollup's included list and surprise surprise even with rollup installed, when I try to install KB2574819 it works! windows asks if I wanna install the update /!\ and just to confirm this isn't a bug that systematically allows included updates to be reinstalled separately: I tested with other updates (in the rollup inclusion list) and windows correctly says that the updates are not applicable for instance KB2882822 (included in the rollup's updates list) can be installed on 7 SP1 without the rollup, but if I try the same thing after the rollup (different VM snapshot) then I get the "not applicable" message instead which means MS is telling the truth about some elements in their rollup's list but apparently not about other elements so why would they lie about included updates in a rollup? a possible reason is that instead of those useful updates they snuck in something far less useful like telemetry updates or something

nope this is home pc (I've my own in my room) alrite just tested again the install.wim is again different size from the other 2 (when opening archive only the windows folder has different size btw) so looks like dism has some random code or something that makes it unpredictable

in the other topic I just wanted to know why KB2670838 takes longer to add (offline) when added after KB3020369 compared to added before KB3020369 (were you able to find out?) here this a separate topic I essentially wanted to know how this works (in win7, generally) so assuming it's online so if someone installed KB2670838 years ago should they install KB3020369 now or skip it? if they install it will it damage their win7 in the long run? (can't test that cause that'd take hours or days or months to see how this plays out)

ok so this question's about KB2670838 (platform update released in 2013) and KB3020369 (recent service stack update) in another topic it turned out that the service stack update must be installed before the platform update (despite it being more recent) so question is, what happens to those who installed the platform update years ago when it came up? should they still install the service stack update or must they skip it? (will it screw up their windows if they install it?)

then what happens to those who installed the platform update years ago when it came up? should they still install the service stack update or must they skip it? (will it screw up their windows if they install it?)