• 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.

Fudzilla on the intel LGA1160 overclocking lock.

Perfect_Chaos

Perfect_Chaos

Perfect_Chaos

Soldato
Joined
26 Aug 2004
Posts
5,155
Location
South Wales
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7255&Itemid=1

"As Intel seems to want to push the much more expensive Bloomfield platform to overclockers, the company implemented a lock that prevents these new processors from being overclocked by adding two PLL clock generators, one inside the CPU itself and one in the PCH.

This might not sound like it's a big problem in itself, but what Intel has done is that these two will clock generators will reference eachother and this means that just changing the bus speed won't have any effect if you're trying to overclock the CPU as it will dissregard the information from the PCH if it's not a correct value."

seems like intel are going to lose a lot of customers, i hope AMD can bring out a cpu to compete with intel and overclocks well for the price.

intel are just pushing people to buy their stupidly expensive cpu's and an extremely stupid move.
 
Having a clock generator on the chip pretty much guarantees that there isn't a way round it unless Intel botch something up like adding the ability to override it which becomes public knowledge.

I'm surprised it's taken this long, they filed the patent for this years ago.
 
but remember not everybody overclocks even 98% of people don't know how to overclock.. so intel won't lose that much... but i agree the people that overclock will lose out but they can move to amd i guess.. which would be good for amd...

amd cpu's isn't as bad as people think...
 
Last edited:
Jokester said:
Having a clock generator on the chip pretty much guarantees that there isn't a way round it unless Intel botch something up like adding the ability to override it which becomes public knowledge.

I'm surprised it's taken this long, they filed the patent for this years ago.
Click to expand...

Spending 500-600 quid on a cpu just to be able to overclock it is ridiculous you have to admit.

I was going to change to intel for nehalem but it doesnt look like it anymore, anyone have confidence in AMD for their next cpu? :(
 
Got to put the blame to a certain degree on AMD to be honest, if they could produce chips that were competitive with Intel, Intel wouldn't be selling C2Qs at the 2.5-3GHz, when most of those chips will almost certainly do 3.5-4GHz if not more. If they didn't have that level of overclockability then there would be no need for this feature to be added.

Counter to that though, it would suggest that Intel are expecting to be selling Nehelam chips well short of their capabilities again, suggesting that Bloomfield will at least clock like a demon.
 
Jokester said:
Counter to that though, it would suggest that Intel are expecting to be selling Nehelam chips well short of their capabilities again, suggesting that Bloomfield will at least clock like a demon.
Click to expand...

Clock like a demon, maybe some but not all. Spending a fortune on 1 cpu doesnt guarantee a high stable overclock does it?

if the Bloomfield overclockable midrange cpu's are 250-300 quid that would be the max id spend on a cpu, if they are 400 upwards then i would not buy one.
 
james.miller said:
it probably cost them more to design the system than what they are losing.
Click to expand...
yes. but in the long run they probably get that back... also im sure theres some crazy people that world pay the top price.
james.miller said:
besides, im sure they know they stand to loose more from people choosing not to buy their processors because of this lockout.
Click to expand...
but thats only a very small %..
 
Last edited:
gareth170 said:
yes. but in the long run they probably get that back... also im sure theres some crazy people that world pay the top price.

but thats only a very small %..
Click to expand...

dont bet on it if amd offer something comparable. for overclockers its either either outright speed or bang for back. given the choice of an intel at stock, or a slower amd that can be overclocked and performed a good deal better than the intel, it's pretty obvious which the majority will choose, even if the amd was initially more exensive to buy.
 
I would think stopping the overclock on their cpu's would maybe lose 1 to 2% of people but with the people who would still buy their cpu's at a higher price for the same performance as a over clocked cpu i would think they get that 1 to 2% back,maybe more once people get use to it just my thoughts.
 
Maybe only 1-2 % of people overclock although I would say its probably a bit more than that, but the people who do not overclock buy one PC every 1-3 years, the overclocking enthusiasts may purchase 10 CPU's in the same time period.
 
Its only the entrylevel and low mainstream platform thats affected, and a lot of those are the cpu's with a very slow built-in GPU core.

The Bloomfield platform should be where the majority of overclockers are anyway, it has the triple channel DDR3 interface, and better peripheral bus between the cpu and northbridge, there will likely be no crossfire/sli boards on the lower platforms either.

Looking at todays chips, all the first generation quads would have likely been considered part of the performance platform. Though its possible that the Q9300 would be positioned right at the top of the entry level/mainstream category.

Ok, its true at the moment there are a lot of people clocking the E2xxx, and E4xxx series chips, but there is plenty of overclocking in the midranges too. Intel arnt trying to get all the overclockers to buy the Extreme editions. Just push people up to the midrange.

Will it push people over to AMD... perhaps, but I suspect that anything that Phenom competes with (or phenoms successor?) will be running on the performance intel platform anyway, And if entry level Nehelem at stock speeds compete with overclocked Athlon64's then switching to a lower performance AMD platform just because you can overclock it to "near" intel performance would be fairly pointless too.

I overclock, yet I always pick the midrange parts because of the added features. Sure 4mb cache over 2mb/1mb cache may only add a few % in terms of performance, but the difference is there. Yet bloomfield's differences are a lot greater than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom