cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/58764195
I was in the non-profit shop of a local charity. They accept donations of used computers then resell them to the public. The profit goes to charity. I asked for their oldest machine. It had an AMD chip from the 16h family. Thus, a spychip.
So their oldest machine was still too new for me. I asked why don’t you have anything older? They said the general public would not accept anything older, and so the shop also does not accept anything older. When machines are rejected, they go to a factory that destroys them and recovers the raw metals.
It’s sad to see that pre-spychip machines are being destroyed and that even 2nd-hand customers are being limited to anti-consumer spychip hardware.
Okay this is my first time actually having to moderate this community but this is getting pretty heated so I’m gonna lock the post till I can sort things out.
Thanks
Okay yeah, I should have caught this before it got this far. I’m going to lock this post from here on out, remind everyone we’re all on the same side and want to reduce waste, and say no more ‘spychip’ posts for the foreseeable future.
OK, I’ll bite. What spychip?
Supposedly this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Platform_Security_Processor
Microprocessors embedded within a microprocessor which either facilitate remote access or impose closed source software.
- https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000097447/technologies.html
- https://web.archive.org/web/20250920141935/https://www.franksworld.com/2025/09/18/the-intel-backdoor-nobody-can-remove-not-even-you/
- https://consumerrights.wiki/w/AMD_Platform_Security_Processor
- https://hackaday.com/2021/10/01/flaw-in-amd-platform-security-processor-affects-millions-of-computers/
That’s not what “spychip” means though. Spychip implies it’s spying on you, not just running closed source code (that you can dump, btw). And without the PSP, AMD processors would not necessarily be more secure, the vulnerabilities would just be moved elsewhere; secure VMs, memory encryption, secure boot, etc. would not be possible.
OK, I’ll bite. What spychip?
You asked. Then suddenly you claimed to already have the answer. Calling shenanigans.
Spychip implies it’s spying on you,
No it doesn’t. A chip that spies on you is merely one subset of spychips. A spychip can also facilitate snooping or remote control, for example, without performing the snooping directly.
If a spychip is not a chip that spies on you then your words are meaningless. But then you say a spychip is a chip that enables spying, which is literally equivalent to a chip that spies on you. Please pick a definition and stick with it.
If a spychip is not a chip that spies on you
I didn’t say that
then your words are meaningless.
English is obviously not your first language. My words put through whatever translation tool you are using may be meaningless. Find a better translator.
But then you say a spychip is a chip that enables spying,
Yes.
which is literally equivalent to a chip that spies on you.
No it’s not. The chip need not be making direct observations to facilitate observations. Read the links.
Please pick a definition and stick with it.
Please get help from a native English speaker.
If a spychip is not a chip that spies on you
I didn’t say that
then your words are meaningless. English is obviously not your first language. My words put through whatever translation tool you are using may be meaningless. Find a better translator.
No, you just edited your comment after I replied. But if you’re going to start attacking me instead of the argument, then this discussion is already a waste of time. Hope you have better luck finding a spychip-free CPU somewhere else
No, you just edited your comment after I replied.
I did not make a meaningful change. And it was before seeing your response. “A chip that spies on you is merely one subset of spychips” has the same meaning as the wordier original. But we need not rely on heresay. Feel free to quote the original if you are sure you were not drunk or hallucinating.
But if you’re going to start attacking me
You’re pushing a straw man. If you feel attacked, suck it up and try to avoid logical fallacy. And in the future, try not to start off with intellectual dishonesty.
I totally share the desire for really cheap very old hardware. But is there any financial justification for a charity shop paying to stock it? Plus the energy cost to run it if you do buy it.
Then compare to the price tag of a pi zero.
But is there any financial justification for a charity shop paying to stock it?
There is financial justification if they can actually sell it. And of course not if they cannot sell it. We don’t get a crystal ball. It’s a judgement call to predict whether they can sell it. They have opted to be risk averse. The decision was likely made without awareness of pre-spychip characteristics and without considering whether it can be marketed as such. It would be interesting to know if a shop has actually tried that, which can confirm that pre-spychips don’t sell even when marketed as such.
One of the problems is that the shop cannot handle supporting the public on linux. Independent of hardware performance, they abandoned linux in the store and returned to only selling Windows machines. Their staff turnover was too high to keep training staff on giving linux support.
Plus the energy cost to run it if you do buy it.
Energy cost is the same. A 65w PSU that is pegged will draw 65 watts regardless of what it drives. If the hardware is not being heavily tasked and the platform is lean, then there is only a difference on responsiveness but not on energy. Furthermore, some of these pre-spy chips have a TDP of 17w, which is interesting enough that recent machines are still being produced with them:
https://cputronic.com/index.php/cpu/amd-a4-4355m
A 17w TDP means it’s efficient enough to be fanless, or to not need to spin a fan often. It’s foolish to let laptops with 17w APUs get tossed when the very same CPU is still going into modern laptops precisely because of their efficient /for the money/.
Some of the higher TDP chips from the same family are notoriously inefficient. So sellers and buyers need some awareness. In the worst case, an inefficient chip is not so inefficient in a cold region or cold season. We cannot say from 10,000 feet whether such instances would be inefficiently deployed when speaking independant of the regional climate.
Its not just about being able to sell it, but selling it for enough to justify the shelf space it takes up and how long it will be sat around waiting for it to sell.
Regardless, the answer’s the same. Crystal ball, etc
Energy cost is the same. A 65w PSU that is pegged will draw 65 watts regardless of what it drives. If the hardware is not being heavily tasked and the platform is lean, then there is only a difference on responsiveness but not on energy.
I can’t believe I’m saying this, and I’m aware of the potential for innuendo here, but I am going to have to ask what you mean by “pegging” a PSU.
A 65W PSU can supply at most 65W, but it doesn’t “draw 65 watts regardless”. It will draw less than max power if it is using less.
This can be easily verified by using a power meter on the outlet. I have machines with 90W and 25W PSUs drawing only 9W and 4W respectively at idle.
I can’t believe I’m saying this, and I’m aware of the potential for innuendo here, but I am going to have to ask what you mean by “pegging” a PSU.
A 65W PSU can supply at most 65W, but it doesn’t “draw 65 watts regardless”. It will draw less than max power if it is using less.
Yes, indeed. I think we have the same understanding.
Pegging means the appliance is drawing the max amount of current. As a PC becomes more efficient, the PSU does not shrink. It just gives more calculations for the same energy drawn. But if it’s mostly at idle doing basic tasks like web browsing, there isn’t a notable consumption difference. A 65W PSU was typical two decades ago, and also still today.
