655K (Unlocked) Locked on Intel Motherboard... WTF!

[mremulator]

Guys for info, check this out...

Chat InformationPlease wait for a site operator to respond.

Chat InformationYou are now chatting with 'Beate S'

mremulator: Hi,

Beate S: Hello. Thank you for using the Intel Customer Support chat service. We are glad to be of service. How can I help you today?

mremulator: I have the Intel® Desktop Board DH57JG and 655K (unlocked) CPU, however, the max multi in the BIOS is still 24x (stock). Please advise.

Beate S: What exactly would you like to know?

mremulator: Err... I'd like to know how to increase the multiplier please?

Beate S: first of all, if you would like a high-performance system, you would rather go for a performance or extreme board - which teh DH57JG is not

Beate S: on the other hand, we do not support overclocking

Beate S: therefore, I am unable to advise you on that

mremulator: ???? The CPU is a "K" series (unlocked) chip!! It says that the multiplier should be unlocked. I also have an Intel board that does not work as advertised with the chip! I am an engineer and am well aware that the board is not a performance board. However, I want to increase the multiplier (as advertised) up a couple of notches.

Beate S: you can use the 655K cpu on the board - it is supported

mremulator: Yes but the multiplier is LOCKED!

Beate S: but changing settings in the board BIOS is not supported

mremulator: otherwise I would have purchased a non "K" model chip.

My point is your own "unlocked" chip is not unlocked with one of your own motherboards! What a joke.

Beate S: I understand you concern, but the choice of the board is not the right for overclocking

mremulator: I just want the chip to work as advertised. I should have control of the muliplier.

Beate S: considering the chipset and the form factor, the board is not one for this purpose

mremulator: That is your opinion.

Beate S: Can you please provide me with the link to the advertisement where you found that the chip can work like this?
..................................................................

What a joke!

 

[cmndr_andi]

I'd send it all back if I was you. £150 is a heck of a lot of money for a dual core in 2010 - especially one you can't overclock due to the motherboard.

Something like an i5 760 + a ASUS/Gigagbyte P55 board would not cost much more that what you paid and perform much better.

 

[mremulator]

I'd send it all back if I was you. £150 is a heck of a lot of money for a dual core in 2010 - especially one you can't overclock due to the motherboard.

Something like an i5 760 + a ASUS/Gigagbyte P55 board would not cost much more that what you paid and perform much better.

Totally agree. Intel is basically saying that the only board that fully "supports" the "K" series chips are the extreme series motherboards. However, under their own compatibility list it says that the chip is "supported" for this motherboard.

I also find Intel incredibly patronising!

Also had 2 of the Gigabyte H55-USB3 motherboards... both suffered from CMOS checksum errors. Hence why I swapped it out for the Intel motherboard.

Rig...

 

[d_brennen]

Welcome to Intel's new vision on overclocking - "pay more for a faster chip". At least they didn't point you to a DLC or premium rate number to boost the speed

Really hoping against hope AMD pull something out of the bag.

 

[mremulator]

Welcome to Intel's new vision on overclocking - "pay more for a faster chip". At least they didn't point you to a DLC or premium rate number to boost the speed

Really hoping against hope AMD pull something out of the bag.

Yea pay more for an "unlocked" chip that is only "unlocked" on certain/premium boards (Intel)! All they need to do is update the bloody BIOS!

 

[Sayso]

I had a few bad experiences with Intel last time round that's why I'm currently with amd

 

[JonJ678]

You were a dick to the tech support guy. Shame on you.

 

[mremulator]

You were a dick to the tech support guy. Shame on you.

Really? I thought it was the other way around.

 

[garnhamr]

intel guy was patronising