• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

;)

DarrenM343 said:
I don't know why otherwise a CPU would be released at say 4ghz if it easily overclocks to say 5Ghz(on air). Overclockerss may think "awesome", but I'd be happy to buy one already at 5Ghz from the factory with zero oc headroom.
Click to expand...

It's about hitting a power use envelope, once you overclock you basically use more power and also the efficiency of said chip drops to levels that may not fit countries or regions regulations on power use or the companies that manufacture ready built computers as they normally use cheap PSUs and want to stay at a certain power use level.


This is why for example Plasma TVs stopped being manufactured at 1080p as they didn't fit into the new power regulations for countries and regions around the world if they went to 4K with Plasma.
 
Last edited:
Drollic said:
It's the fps minimums that are more important than averages boosted by higher maximums due to architecture improvements. Quite often the benchmarks you see don't cater for this very well.
Click to expand...

+1

at 1080p i would expect to see big gains on the mins. that is what i experienced when i went from sandy bridge to sky lake.

i think a cpu that boosts to 4.5 ghz out of the box is a big deal and if nothing else it brings more performance to those who do not overclock or don't like the extra heat overclocking brings.
 
mmj_uk said:
Most technology manufacturers these days are focussed on improving power efficiency. Intel mainstream is designed for mobile devices where power efficiency is king, Intel enthusiast is aimed at servers where power efficiency allows them to add more cores. Power efficiency is much more important to Intel's main markets than overclocking, Intel's cores are already plenty fast enough as it is.

Besides, now that AMD (with Zen) offer the same big cores as Intel on a similar sized manufacturing process there's every chance they'll struggle with raising clockspeeds as well.
Click to expand...

Again, so what? Intel are not adding more cores, nor are they improving performance, i don't give a #### about power efficiency, what i want is more performance, more cores, Intel are not providing that.

Next you'll will be saying "Intel's cores are already plenty fast enough as it is." or is that too idiotic even for you to say?

Defending the indefensible always has a particular strange look about it.
 
Last edited:
Besty said:
+1

at 1080p i would expect to see big gains on the mins. that is what i experienced when i went from sandy bridge to sky lake.

i think a cpu that boosts to 4.5 ghz out of the box is a big deal and if nothing else it brings more performance to those who do not overclock or don't like the extra heat overclocking brings.
Click to expand...
I would rather they clocked it at 2.5ghz with 3ghz boost out the box and it oc to 5ghz, so oc master race could watch the stock cpu peasants with there console grade fps.

Also then people would have to go in a bios and they might even know how to enable xmp :O
 
DarrenM343 said:
Ultimately, a fully optimised chip from the factory that is able to detect how good the employed cooling solution is and turbo or clock up appropriately,there should be very little overclocking headroom? and any extra performance we get from it ourselves would naturally lead to a shorter lifespan? I'm guessing Intel are now more able or more wiling to run their processors closer to the failure point than in the past hence less overclocking headroom.

I don't know why otherwise a CPU would be released at say 4ghz if it easily overclocks to say 5Ghz(on air). Overclockerss may think "awesome", but I'd be happy to buy one already at 5Ghz from the factory with zero oc headroom.
Click to expand...


Yet they charge us extra for a overclocking platform (Z series board/K series cpu) and lock it down so that is the only way to be able to overclock is to use what they say we can use and we are supposed to be happy with a few hundred mhz? Sorry but no.

My first Intel build (always had AMD before that) was a 1.8Ghz E4300 overclocked to 3.4Ghz in a Gigabyte 965p-DS3P, a setup that cost a fraction of what we are charged these days. Better was still to come though. Gigabyte launched what is probably the best bang for buck motherboard ever released, the awesome Gigabyte GA-P31-DS3L. This board could be had for around £45 or less and was capable of some mighty overclocks. Someone on here had a Q6600 running at 3.8Ghz in one and I had a E6600 at 3.8Ghz in it as well as a E2160/E2180 both at 3.6Ghz. Since Intel locked down overclocking to the Z series chipset and K series psu we don't see performance boosts on a budget like that anymore. Yes there have been instances where some manufacturers have defied Intel and enabled clocking on non Z series boards (my wifes Gigabyte B85M-D3H overclocks my 4670k to the same speed with the same settings as my Asus Hero) but that was short lived and only happened with Haswell. There's the bclk overclocking with Skylake but it has downsides and I expect that will no longer be viable with Kabylake as I can see Intel putting a stop to that.

A lot of people on here think that what we are getting today is awesome and we are getting a good deal but those same people probably don't remember or weren't around when we had real performance gains from overclocking, often for very little money. As for clockspeeds, I had a E8500 on socket 775 that did 4.5Ghz 24/7 many years ago so 5Ghz these days is not impressive at all to me.
 
yeah, the whole K thing is a bit of a middle finger. The whole idea of overclocking was to get extra performance without paying extra. Intel locking the chips that you'd actually want to overclock then charge a premium for chips that are already close to the high end of what they are capable of.

In an ideal world we'd be buying things like the 6400 for under £180 and clocking them past the £240 6600.


edit - fixed a typo
 
Last edited:
StarShock said:
yeah, the whole K thing is a bit of a middle finger. The whole idea of overclocking was to get extra performance without paying extra. Intel locking the chips that you'd actually want to overclock then charge a premium for chips that are already close to the high end of what they are capable of.

In an ideal world we'd be buying things like the 6400 for under £180 and clocking them past the £240 6600.


edit - fixed a typo
Click to expand...
With skylake there is nothing stopping you doing that. Both my I 5 6500 overclocked higher than my 6600k. In fact ocuk even sell i5 6400 oc bundles!
 
Jumper118 said:
With skylake there is nothing stopping you doing that. Both my I 5 6500 overclocked higher than my 6600k. In fact ocuk even sell i5 6400 oc bundles!
Click to expand...

That's a fair enough point, but it goes against what Intel want. They've taken steps to stop people doing it and I'll be surprised if the Z270 and future chipset have the same loop hole.

My point is really just that Intel don't want people overclocking their chips, at least not without paying for the privilege :(
 
Jumper118 said:
With skylake there is nothing stopping you doing that. Both my I 5 6500 overclocked higher than my 6600k. In fact ocuk even sell i5 6400 oc bundles!
Click to expand...


That still doesn't change the fact that you are still locked into needing a Z series motherboard which are significantly more expensive than the likes of a B or H series board. We never used to be locked down to a particular chipset and overclocking of varying degrees was possible across all motherboards and cpu's.



Jumper118 said:
That is why you get an asrock oc formula. You can choose the cpu microcode in a drop down menu so you can run any bios you like :D good init?
Click to expand...


Not really. By the time you have paid £220+ for that board you have missed the point of non k cpu overclocking and could have bought a 6600k and decent Z170 board at a significant price saving while having none of the drawbacks of bclk overclocking.
 
pastymuncher said:
That still doesn't change the fact that you are still locked into needing a Z series motherboard which are significantly more expensive than the likes of a B or H series board. We never used to be locked down to a particular chipset and overclocking of varying degrees was possible across all motherboards and cpu's.






Not really. By the time you have paid £220+ for that board you have missed the point of non k cpu overclocking and could have bought a 6600k and decent Z170 board at a significant price saving while having none of the drawbacks of bclk overclocking.
Click to expand...
that is true but even on 775 the more expensive chipsets were objectively better for overclocking, also then a more expensive motherboard with better vrm and design and north bridge cooling would give you higher overclocks.

Also I paid £150 for my oc formula and sold it for £155 after 8 months of using it so actually it wasn't really that expensive of a motherboard after all :p. Also you have to blame the border manufacturers as well as it wouldn't have been too hard to put that feature on their lower end boards?

Everyone is out to make money here. Nobody want the consumer to win so you have to put the effort in to find that loophole and find that board that allows you to do as you like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom