Update: Where does TPM live?

Topic

New Reply

WINDOWS 11 By Will Fastie Trying to find out where Trusted Platform Module is implemented in Intel-based systems was harder than I thought. Intel fina
[See the full post at: Update: Where does TPM live?]

1 user thanked author for this post.

lmacri

Reply | Quote

Replies

Hi Wiil,

Great info!
I was already desparate, my 1.5 year old Aorus Z390 Pro motherboard did not qualify for Win11.
It has what the manual describes as “Trusted Platform Module (TPM) header (2×6 pin, for the GC-TPM2.0_S module only)”. That module is sold out world-wide.

After enabeling Intel PTT in the BIOS it did not quality yet.

The trick is to enable the above mentioned (non-present) TPM module as well and then it qualifies!

Good luck,

Eric

1 user thanked author for this post.

Will Fastie

Reply | Quote

“…turning on Secured Core features on Intel’s 6th-gen Skylake would impact performance by as much as 30 percent, which might explain why fairly recent 6th gen chips got cut.”
https://www.pcworld.com/article/3623713/why-windows-11-is-leaving-so-many-pcs-behind.html

That’s no head-scratcher. It’s the same thing that happened when some Skylake chipsets had the microcode updates for Spectre-Meltdown applied. In some hardware configurations the security worked just fine, but performance took such a hard hit that Windows 10, let alone Windows 11 trying to run Android apps in a virtualized environment, ground to a crawl.

So it’s not all about TPM or PTT. It also has to do with virtualization and overall system performance with all the security features cranked waaaaay up.

A (performance) line had to be drawn somewhere. Skylake just does not make the cut, though Kaby Lake may be marginally acceptable. Just not all Kaby Lake processors and chipsets. All the 8th-Gen Intel chipsets are good to go for Windows 11 with Android apps and high security.

-- rc primak

1 user thanked author for this post.

windbg

Reply | Quote

PTT resides on the CPU and not the chipset from what I have read.  While motherboards may have TPM sockets, the modules are sold out and only available at super high markups on Ebay.  In addition to enabling TPM or PTT (AMD CPUs also have a similar security feature), one must also have secure boot enabled.  In both cases, most motherboard manufactures do not have these feature enabled in the BIOS that is shipped.  Maybe this will change with the impending release of Windows 11.  I know that my Z490 board that I bought a year ago did not.  It’s also surprising that ASUS (my board) and other suppliers make you pay extra for a TPM module.  Again maybe this changes going forward.

Reply | Quote

My Intel NUC-PC shipped with everything enabled. It’s the 6th-Gen Skylake name which bars me from Windows 11 for now. And probably forever.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

rc primak wrote:

My Intel NUC-PC shipped with everything enabled. It’s the 6th-Gen Skylake name which bars me from Windows 11 for now. And probably forever.

Maybe not forever. I used ReadySunValley_x64 for checking and it offered to insert entries in the registry to bypass certain requirements

1 user thanked author for this post.

rc primak

Reply | Quote

The performance hit is too high to make these hacks worth applying. It’s all moot with my NUC-PC, because the power supply is not behaving properly anymore. It’s time for a new PC. If all goes well, mine will arrive by September, and will be Panther Canyon (Intel 11th Gen core-i5). That should easily make the Windows 11 requirements, possibly with a few BIOS mods.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

Windows 11 is a marketing disaster waiting to happen. My brand new state-of-the-art gaming computer will not run it because it uses a virtual TPM. You can switch to a hardware TPM but you get a warning that you could lose all of your data if you don’t have a key. No thank you. Only 1 of my 4 computers will run Win11.

One of them is 4 years old. It has TPM but apparently not the right one.
One of them is a 2 year old *Microsoft Surface Pro.* Right, it’s from Microsoft but it won’t run their new OS.

The only one that will take the new OS is a Lenovo Thinkpad X1.

I think very few people will want or be able to upgrade, especially businesses who don’t have the time or money for this nonsense pepetrated by MS. I understand their desire for security but this is not the way to go about it.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Rob D

Reply | Quote

“lose all your data” only refers to if you are already using bitlocker with the old configuration. If you aren’t already using bitlocker, your data will not become inaccessible.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

I’m a non-techy user. I think I represent many who can follow instructions and keep reasonably up to date with our computers for work and play. They can’t go ahead with this idiocy unless they want to lose people like me who get angrier with each revelation of the hoops u have to jump through to run an OS that seems like a cosmetic improvement and not a breakthrough one! It’s  a complete misreading of the general computing public, IMVHO.

2 users thanked author for this post.

AmbularD, Microfix

Reply | Quote

agoldhammer wrote:

PTT resides on the CPU and not the chipset

There is no mention of PTT on Intel’s ARK site for the i5-11600K processor, which is of interest to me. However, it is mentioned for the Z590 chipset as well as your Z490.

My statement about what an Intel spokesperson told me was shown to that person, who approved the wording without change. I wanted to be sure I was reporting accurately.

2 users thanked author for this post.

rc primak, Rob D

Reply | Quote

Information posted June 27, 2021 on configuration:

https://www.askwoody.com/forums/topic/win11-pc-health-check-tool-compatibility-checker/#post-2373898

On permanent hiatus {with backup and coffee}
offline▸ Win10Pro 2004.19041.572 x64 i3-3220 RAM8GB HDD Firefox83.0b3 WindowsDefender
offline▸ Acer TravelMate P215-52 RAM8GB Win11Pro 22H2.22621.1265 x64 i5-10210U SSD Firefox106.0 MicrosoftDefender
online▸ Win11Pro 22H2.22621.1992 x64 i5-9400 RAM16GB HDD Firefox116.0b3 MicrosoftDefender

2 users thanked author for this post.

rc primak, Rob D

Reply | Quote

All I can say is they had better offer at least two or three years of ESU if they are really going forward with all this idiocy.  I only just in the past couple of months finally got my entire household onto Windows 10, and now they’re talking about destroying Start Menu functionality again and whatever ridiculous security requirements and BLAH.  Pick an interface and stick with it already.

i7-10700k - ASROCK Z590 Pro4 - 1TB 970 EVO Plus M.2 - DDR4 3200 x 32GB - GeForce RTX 3060 Ti FTW - Windows 10 Pro

Reply | Quote

AmbularD wrote:

All I can say is they had better offer at least two or three years of ESU if they are really going forward with all this idiocy.

Don’t count on that. I’m sticking with my prediction that Microsoft will not back off these tough system requirements.

In effect, the next four years of Windows 10 support is the “ESU” period.

2 users thanked author for this post.

rc primak, Noel Carboni

Reply | Quote

This leaves unanswered the question of why Microsoft drew its line in the sand with Intel eighth-generation processors for Windows 11. In theory, my own PC with its fourth-generation, 64-bit i5-4690 processor and Z97 chipset should be TPM-capable, but fourth-generation processors are definitely not on the list. We continue to search for an answer to that head-scratcher.

Just a SWAG, mind you, but given that Microsoft sells hardware, it’s not hard to imagine they’d prefer you purchase a new system to be able to run Windows 11.

Time was, advancements in capacity and speed drove new hardware sales, but what is the magnitude of those advancements now? After all, you asked the above question with the tacit assumption that your 4th gen i7 presumably should be able to run Win 11 just fine. In fact it’s an incredibly powerful processor.

Going even further back (for us old timers at least) “planned obsolescence” was a dirty phrase. Now hardware outlasts its [arbitrary] usefulness regularly. On the other side of the fence there is a whole group of people who are dedicated to – and smitten with – a hardware company that arbitrarily obsoletes their hardware and demands they spend thousands every few years. Guess who Microsoft is trying to emulate…

-Noel

1 user thanked author for this post.

wavy

Reply | Quote

Time was, advancements in capacity and speed drove new hardware sales, but what is the magnitude of those advancements now?

The performance hit of enabling the necessary security on older chips and chipsets is horrific. That’s why Microsoft drew the line where they did. It’s not that Windows 11 won’t run on these older PC configurations. It just won’t deliver anything approaching usable performance parameters.

-- rc primak

1 user thanked author for this post.

Will Fastie

Reply | Quote

Noel Carboni wrote:

but given that Microsoft sells hardware

Microsoft doesn’t sell PC hardware (Surface sales are “~none existent”).
Microsoft sells new Windows, Office..licenses with new PCs.

Reply | Quote

Alex5723 wrote:

Microsoft doesn’t sell PC hardware (Surface sales are “~none existent”).

$8 Billion sales per year is far from non-existent:

Surface FY21 Q2 earnings surpassed two billion dollars for the first time.

https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-fy21-q2-revenue-report

2 users thanked author for this post.

rc primak, Will Fastie

Reply | Quote

Noel Carboni wrote:

… given that Microsoft sells hardware, it’s not hard to imagine they’d prefer you purchase a new system to be able to run Windows 11.

It’s easy and headline-grabbing to make that claim, but I stand by my position that Microsoft has had a better obsolescence record than, say, Apple. It’s the only way to explain how my 12-year-old Vostro 220 runs Windows 10 and MS-DOS apps ran natively up until Windows 8, for over 30 years.

And despite the way Microsoft bungled the Windows 11 announcement, let’s not forget that Windows 10 has another four years to go. Nobody is forced to move to 11. We may be nagged into it by the annoying “Got 11?” notifications that are now popping up, a stupid repeat of the Windows 10 push, but we’re not yet to the point where it’s a must-have.

I’m building a new PC because I can’t run 11 otherwise. I need to run 11 for my job, this job.

2 users thanked author for this post.

AlexEiffel, rc primak

Reply | Quote

“but I stand by my position that Microsoft has had a better obsolescence record than, say, Apple”

If you are writing about cellphones, yes, Apple is big on making shiny new things and making them old fast, but MS does not make or sell cellphones. If you are writing about computers, I have had both Windows PCs and Macs, same as other people I know. MS has not supported computers with certain newer generations of Intel CPUs running older versions of Windows, while Apple not only never did that, while, in my time, it has changed processors twice, from RISC to CISC (Power PC to Intel) and now is going back to RISC (ARM) but in both cases has provided “Rosetta” software to make it possible for computers with the previous type of processor to continue running Apple’s OS and application software. At present,  it continues to make, sell and support Macs with Intel processors as it also starts to make and sell the new RISC machines. MS is much more of a software company than a hardware one, while Apple is both. So I think that you are comparing two companies that are too dissimilar in too many respects, including programmed equipment obsolescence, to be compared in the way you do.

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

OscarCP wrote:

but MS does not make or sell cellphones

Microsoft has made and sold the Surface Duo foldable Android smartphone for the last 10 months, with an upgraded 5G version expected to be released within the next few months.

2 users thanked author for this post.

rc primak, OscarCP

Reply | Quote

b wrote:

$8 billion sales per year is far from non-existent

Especially when the margin is high.

1 user thanked author for this post.

rc primak

Reply | Quote

b wrote:

$8 Billion sales per year is far from non-existent

~6-8M Surface devices sold per year (total 275M PCs sold in 2020) is close to non-existent.
Apple sold 85M Macs + iPads in 2020.

Reply | Quote

Alex5723 wrote:

close to non-existent

$8 billion per year, high margin? I’ll take that business.

1 user thanked author for this post.

rc primak

Reply | Quote

I have a Z97 ASRock mobo and installed a TPM 1.2 chip on it when I originally put the system together.  But I never got around to turning it on or playing with it.

Reply | Quote

rc primak wrote:

It’s all moot with my NUC-PC, because the power supply is not behaving properly anymore. It’s time for a new PC.

Intel has a new NUC : Intel NUC 11 Extreme

1 user thanked author for this post.

rc primak

Reply | Quote

I went with the more affordable NUC 11 Performance i5 (NUC11PAKi5) https://simplynuc.com/11paki5-full/

Even this model has a backlog and won’t ship for a couple to four more weeks.

Panther Canyon looks really interesting — can’t wait to try it out!

-- rc primak

1 user thanked author for this post.

Alex5723

Reply | Quote

rc primak wrote:

That’s why Microsoft drew the line where they did.

I think you are probably right. But why I can’t get Microsoft (or Intel) to confirm that?

1 user thanked author for this post.

rc primak

Reply | Quote

OscarCP wrote:

MS is much more of a software company than a hardware one, while Apple is both.

You are absolutely correct. Microsoft’s job is harder.

All the more reason to ding Apple for its poor record regarding hardware obsolescence, including it bricking my 2008, Intel-based Mac Mini by ending support for macOS on my model.

The useful life of that Mini lasted until about 2012, less than four years. After that I couldn’t even get Safari updates. Meanwhile, I’m running Windows 10 on the three PCs I use regularly, including a 2009 Dell Vostro 220.

Reply | Quote

Could we keep this discussion on-topic please?

 

Reply | Quote

I’m sorry — where have we gone off-topic?

The whole discussion of TPM 2.0 requirements brings us to the more general issues of hardware requirements for Windows 11. And why some hardware is rated compatible while other hardware is not. That was also the thrust of Will Fastie’s original article, I believe.

That’s where I’m coming from anyway.

Are you expecting a narrow, technical discussion about TPM 2.0 an how it works?

-- rc primak

1 user thanked author for this post.

b

Reply | Quote

rc primak wrote:

I’m sorry — where have we gone off-topic?

The whole discussion of TPM 2.0 requirements brings us to the more general issues of hardware requirements for Windows 11. And why some hardware is rated compatible while other hardware is not. That was also the thrust of Will Fastie’s original article, I believe.

That’s where I’m coming from anyway.

Are you expecting a narrow, technical discussion about TPM 2.0 an how it works?

This topic started about hardware requirements, how and why it is possible to have a version 1 TPM (separate chip?) on a motherboard while the chipset itself supported TPM 2 for many years, and what are real hardware requirements for Win11, and why.

Not a discussion on hardware manufacturers profit models, market share, new model of Surface Duo’s, etc.

1 user thanked author for this post.

rc primak

Reply | Quote

The new models of Microsoft Surface I believe were mentioned to figure out where they fit into the compatibility picture. That I think is relevant.

The rest about business models and profit motives went into the weeds, I confess.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote