3 ms·

I wish I knew what the intel ME and AMD's PSP actually did for 'normal' users. The only time I've ever encountered IME has been in the context of out-of-band se

I wish I knew what the intel ME and AMD's PSP actually did for 'normal' users. The only time I've ever encountered IME has been in the context of out-of-band server management where it "makes sense" and I totally get it. But I don't get it on consumer computers. It's got to cost something at some level -- there must be a reason why it's worth the chip space. What is it?

zozbot234 5y ago
They do basic bring up and power management. They're the part of the chip that deals with properly bootstrapping the "main" cores, tweaking voltages and spinning up the fans when the computer gets hot. All of these things are really best done with the kind of micro-controller like logic that's part of IME, the main CPU is way too complex to deal with this stuff on its own.
fouric 5y ago
It might not actually provide any benefit at all - it's entirely possible that ME/PSP are simply included because it's slightly easier/cheaper for Intel/AMD to design and ship a single unit than two separate units, or a single software configuration on that silicon instead of two different configurations - just like how they'll fab a single piece of silicon and then selectively disable pieces of some chips and sell those as lower-performance parts. Obviously, that doesn't make any sense to a consumer - but that's the logic that the manufactures might be following.
shikoba 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#Assertions_that_ME_is_a_backdoor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#Assert... Look at the last paragraph. Intel usually document everything, but that thing they refuse...
- MerelyMortal 5y ago
  Intel's quote saying that they do not do that, nor do they have access, could be true. However their statements allow for the possibility that someone else designs backdoors, puts them in, and can use them. > "Intel does not and will not design backdoors for access into its products." > "Intel does not put back doors in its products nor do our products give Intel control or access to computing systems without the explicit permission of the end user." It would be much easier to say, "there are no backdoors", but they don't.
  - shikoba 5y ago
    But why do they refuse to document that part? They don't want us to use our own firmwares?

zozbot234 5y ago

They do basic bring up and power management. They're the part of the chip that deals with properly bootstrapping the "main" cores, tweaking voltages and spinning up the fans when the computer gets hot. All of these things are really best done with the kind of micro-controller like logic that's part of IME, the main CPU is way too complex to deal with this stuff on its own.

fouric 5y ago

It might not actually provide any benefit at all - it's entirely possible that ME/PSP are simply included because it's slightly easier/cheaper for Intel/AMD to design and ship a single unit than two separate units, or a single software configuration on that silicon instead of two different configurations - just like how they'll fab a single piece of silicon and then selectively disable pieces of some chips and sell those as lower-performance parts. Obviously, that doesn't make any sense to a consumer - but that's the logic that the manufactures might be following.

shikoba 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#Assertions_that_ME_is_a_backdoor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#Assert... Look at the last paragraph. Intel usually document everything, but that thing they refuse...

MerelyMortal 5y ago
Intel's quote saying that they do not do that, nor do they have access, could be true. However their statements allow for the possibility that someone else designs backdoors, puts them in, and can use them. > "Intel does not and will not design backdoors for access into its products." > "Intel does not put back doors in its products nor do our products give Intel control or access to computing systems without the explicit permission of the end user." It would be much easier to say, "there are no backdoors", but they don't.
- shikoba 5y ago
  But why do they refuse to document that part? They don't want us to use our own firmwares?