-
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.
Intel Alder Lake Non-K OC! 12600 @ 5200Mhz
- Thread starter RavenXXX2
- Start date
Soldato
But it's not an advertised feature of motherboards and chipsets, and you know full well it's not.
I don't remember AMD motherboards advertising PBO either.
Why would Intel advertise it as part of ADLs marketing if they are going block the feature being used?
Last edited:
Why would only a small handful of motherboards from a single manufacturer support something that's a standard platform feature?
The rumour mill is saying the asrock B660 steel legend will support this so if true that will bring the price down to sub £150 for a board.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-alder-lake-overclocking-record
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-alder-lake-overclocking-record
Intel Warns Of 'Damage' From Non-K Alder Lake CPU Overclocking
Intel says do not overclock your non-K Alder Lake chips or lose your warranty, CPU, and possibly other hardware.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-warns-of-damage-from-non-k-alder-lake-cpu-overclocking
"Errors Will Be Fixed"
"Considering Intel's history of shutting down similar loopholes, it's likely that this non-K overclocking fun will be removed in any newer BIOS updates to boards where it is currently available."
Intel says do not overclock your non-K Alder Lake chips or lose your warranty, CPU, and possibly other hardware.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-warns-of-damage-from-non-k-alder-lake-cpu-overclocking
"Errors Will Be Fixed"
"Considering Intel's history of shutting down similar loopholes, it's likely that this non-K overclocking fun will be removed in any newer BIOS updates to boards where it is currently available."
Last edited:
However, while Intel's statement appears to firmly disapprove of this overclocking activity, on the surface at least, it isn't suggesting it will be shut down ASAP.
Until it's confirmed on sub £150 boards it's really a non issue anyway as you buy a 12600kf + cheap Z690 for around £400 which is the same as an expensive B660 and 12400F and that's not taking into account the need for DDR5 on those boards.
And this is where a design like Alder lake displays its weaknesses.
Last edited:
Soldato
You know full well that Intel lock down overclocking to K series SKUs and Z series chipsets. From time to time things like BLCK tweaking has made it into boards, or crazy peeps like Asrock have implemented something they probably shouldn't, and Intel don't seem bothered and let it go, but all the actual overclocking features that Intel advertise are always locked to K SKUs and Z boards.
So yes, Intel have always since Sandy Bridge have advertised features they will then explicitly lock out at a chipset/motherboard level.
Stop being obtuse and childish.
Well up till last gen memory overclocking was also locked on B series boards and now it's a thing so maybe they will allow bclk OC now and it makes sense if they do since they are still being outsold by AMD despite having better products priced cheaper as so allowing something like this will increase sales and create a lot of positive mindshare among enthusiasts.
Soldato
Fully agree. AMD won back the mindshare by having consistently good products, which ultimately bested Intel for 2 generations straight. It'll take more than one semi return to form for Intel to recapture what it's lost, but enabling their customers to batter AMD all across the product stack by not nickel-and-diming them for every little feature. Memory and BCLK overclocking on B series boards would be a great start, especially on DDR4 boards in the £150 and lower price bracket.
The big problem with that though, which is why Intel won't do it, is allowing something like a 12400F to get some degree of overclocking will heavily cannibalise 12600K sales and make a mockery of the hybrid core design.
I know what your saying but surely selling more CPUs is better and given that many on old AM4 boards would be looking at buying a 5600X or 5800X rather than switching to a 12600K + Z690 due to cost then would offer a carrot on a stick to those people.
This was what Ian Cutress said back in October so there is some hope that Intel won't remove this.
"What Alder Lake brings back to the table is BCLK overclocking. For the last decade or so, most overclocking is done with the CPU multiplier, and before that it was BCLK or FSB. Intel is now saying that BCLK overclocking has returned, and this is partly due to motherboard customizations in the clock generator. Every Alder Lake CPU has an internal BCLK/clock generator it can use, however motherboard vendors can also apply an external clock generator. Intel expects only the lowest-end motherboards will not have an external generator."
Soldato
Only the high end boards actually have then though, as motherboard vendors don't want to destroy their own high end sales.
So yes they can put the external clock gen on but the evidence so far suggests that haven't. Once I've heard back from my FAE at ASRock I'll see what he says.
So yes they can put the external clock gen on but the evidence so far suggests that haven't. Once I've heard back from my FAE at ASRock I'll see what he says.
Alder lake isn’t selling well and will be a short lived product, so IMO it’s questionable if it’s worth going to the trouble to support lower margin motherboard sales for manufacturers. It maybe worth someone like EVGA getting behind this to bolster sales, but it’s risky annoying a company Intel when they have lofty plans to to remodel the graphics card market and most of EVGA’s revenue comes from the GPU market and they seem to want a slice of the AMD pie.
Things become very topical for Intel. If Intel allow a situation to unfold where big core only parts start to undermine Intels Big+Little design mantra, Intel could find themselves in trouble as Big+Little is all Intel have for the next five years or more.
Soldato
Let's be honest here, we're talking about the DIY market. Does Intel really give a crap about the DIY market?
Intel could spec and price the Alder Lake platform to completely bury Ryzen 5000, or they could just sell millions of units of 12400F and non-K 12600 SKUs to OEMs, which is always where they make the money. Any additional sales they make from the DIY space is a bonus.
I think we know which one will happen, unfortunately.
And as I said previously, if SKUs with only big cores are given the ability to outperform hybrid SKUs, it undermines the entire point of the hybrid design. We've already seen forum members here saying "well, why can't we just have 10 big cores because the little cores suck, especially in gaming", and that will only be reaffirmed with actual sales figures if a 12400F can be tweaked to game better than a 12600K.
If those of us savvy enough to avoid Turing and Ampere (to a lesser degree) because we refuse to pay for transistors that go unused 90% of the time, why would we do the same with Intel's little cores if we can avoid it?
The big core only value chips only undermine gaming performance of the expensive chips, nothing else.
The 12th gen laptops have been benchmarked, this is where big.little really shines.
Destroying AMD cpu performance by 50%
Big+Little is a botch. It’s destroying Intel by 50% too. It has to be a carefully marketed botch though.