Intel to drop overclocking for mainstream Nehalems

MTA99 · 23 Apr 2008 at 16:42

martian_aphid said:
I don't doubt that MTA, I was being sarcastic to the notion of those who purchase on advertising, etc rather than based on performance.

Noted but going back to the early point, "overclockers" are not a significant concern for Intel.

martian_aphid said:
In reaction to the previous statement about stockcpu.co.uk I think the interesting point is; where will the overclocking field grow, at least in the cpu arena, when even both intel and amd begin to hit the theoretical limits of 22nm.

2 points here:

1. Intel and AMD will *have* to find ways of overcoming the 22nm limit (with different materials, on chip quantum leakage detectors etc) or they are going to be vulnerable as a business to someone who does. This isn't a new problem so the amount of R&D going into various techniques will be phenomenal.

2. Even if it takes a couple of generations to move from silicon to "the next big thing" they'll be opportunities to get performance bargains. High end chips rebranded as mid range because its more cost effective.

Energize · 23 Apr 2008 at 16:48

MTA99 said:
1. Intel and AMD will *have* to find ways of overcoming the 22nm limit (with different materials, on chip quantum leakage detectors etc) or they are going to be vulnerable as a business to someone who does. This isn't a new problem so the amount of R&D going into various techniques will be phenomenal.
.

It's called graphene.

simonnance · 23 Apr 2008 at 16:54

However, with most of the Northbridge being located inside the CPU of these models, it might be possible for Intel to make some changes as to what the BIOS can access and how the bus speed is controlled. If this is indeed the case, then this is very sad news for all enthusiasts, as it means that a huge group of users will never be able to afford to buy an overclockable platform, from Intel, that is.

sounds like a spade-load of conjecture to me..... "If" and "might" somehow becomes "we have learned" and "will"

none of it is even sourced.....

I'll believe it when i hear direct quotes from Intel

WillSpengler · 23 Apr 2008 at 16:58

fothsn said:
Hi mate, sorry about that I didn’t miss your post nor ignore it just got side distracted playing on TDU

It's alright, it was just that was my main point, and the fact that it wouldnt affect too many people was a sub point in regards to other posters!

theforce said:
Intel if it was a smarter company would actually continue this trend for as long as it takes for AMD to go bunkrupt

If that happens, it wouldnt be long before government stood in to try and break intel down into seperate companies. Monopolies are a baaaad thing!

WillSpengler · 23 Apr 2008 at 17:01

MTA99 said:
1. Intel and AMD will *have* to find ways of overcoming the 22nm limit (with different materials, on chip quantum leakage detectors etc) or they are going to be vulnerable as a business to someone who does. This isn't a new problem so the amount of R&D going into various techniques will be phenomenal.

The 22nm limit is regarding CMOS, which is the basis of computers since the 70s (maybe 60s?).

The amount of R&D going into it is incredible, however, we are moving closer and closer to the limits and that will no doubt end up with us using SETs (single electron transistors). Once we reach that point, there isnt any going smaller.

Companies will have to start focusing even more on architechture design.

MTA99 said:
2. Even if it takes a couple of generations to move from silicon to "the next big thing" they'll be opportunities to get performance bargains. High end chips rebranded as mid range because its more cost effective.

This is true, carbon may be the way forward IMO

ps3ud0 · 23 Apr 2008 at 17:04

WillSpengler said:
Also, £25,000,000 is 25 million . . .

But the original sum is wrong anyway, 250,000 x £50 gives 12.5 million.

Maths isnt the strong point in this thread

Thank god they fixed the floating point errors in Pentiums

ps3ud0

mrthingyx · 23 Apr 2008 at 20:29

Remember guys - this FUD is only talking about budget CPUs. It's not talking about Socket 1366 (which is the expensive one).

Lightnix · 23 Apr 2008 at 20:46

Yeah, but lots of us love the E2000 series because it's a brilliant cheap overclocking platform. On that note, it's only their first go at this, so no doubt there'll be some complicated procedure to overclock even if they do use the onboard memory controller for evil doings.

Monkeynut · 23 Apr 2008 at 21:05

Wouldn't this hurt the motherboard manufacturers too? I mean, ASUS, MSI etc make enthusiast boards which are better because of their overclocking capability. So ASUS, MSI etc basically go under? :confused:

Chimerical · 23 Apr 2008 at 21:26

Monkeynut said:
Wouldn't this hurt the motherboard manufacturers too? I mean, ASUS, MSI etc make enthusiast boards which are better because of their overclocking capability. So ASUS, MSI etc basically go under?

Not really...

Asus ships 20 million motherboards a year

Or so I read.

It's a big number either way, Asus claimed that 1 in every 3 PC's have Asus Mainboards inside them.

gareth170 · 23 Apr 2008 at 22:14

tbh i can understand why they wanna do this... most overclockers buy the cheap processors then overclock them to near or above the top end processors...

anyway if it's true, this is good news for amd....

BubbySoup · 24 Apr 2008 at 09:42

If Intel do lock their mainstream CPU's, it won't matter much if AMD's equivalent at that time cannot keep up when overclocked.

I enjoy overclocking, it's fun and always interesting to see how far you can push your latest purchase, but I certainly wouldn't buy a CPU just so I can overclock it, if it still ends up being slower than Intel's locked chip in that price range.

gareth170 · 24 Apr 2008 at 11:19

BubbySoup said:
If Intel do lock their mainstream CPU's, it won't matter much if AMD's equivalent at that time cannot keep up when overclocked.

I enjoy overclocking, it's fun and always interesting to see how far you can push your latest purchase, but I certainly wouldn't buy a CPU just so I can overclock it, if it still ends up being slower than Intel's locked chip in that price range.

but amd isn't far behind now in performance. e.g. the phenom 9850 at stock isn't far behind the q6600.. in some app/benchmarks the phenom 9850 is alittle faster...

personly i think the phenom processors as some nice features....

Greebo · 24 Apr 2008 at 13:09

fothsn said:
You can honestly say Intel preventing people over clocking there chips will not dent them as a company, I’m sorry it sure will.

Not been able to overclock Dell systems now hasn't harmed their sales......

Fothsn · 24 Apr 2008 at 13:15

Greebo said:
Not been able to overclock Dell systems now hasn't harmed their sales......

Well yes as they have their retail chips that sell, how many Q6600 sales do you think Intel would have lost if they had features in them that didn’t allow and stop over clocking?

WillSpengler · 24 Apr 2008 at 13:34

Intel probably would have sold more higher end chips as people wouldnt have been able to buy a cheaper chip and OC it

Fothsn · 24 Apr 2008 at 13:45

WillSpengler said:
Intel probably would have sold more higher end chips as people wouldnt have been able to buy a cheaper chip and OC it

That’s true

But there aren’t many people that can buy QX chips that are unlocked, you would probably would see a load move over to AMD.

mdjmcnally · 24 Apr 2008 at 13:50

milkinc13 said:
If Intel do this then surely they will lose performace crows not just from stock speeds, but thoese dedicated users who buy chips and nock the pants oof of them then post benchmarks and Intel can currently say "we good at stock and oh look we have the highest benchmark score in 3Dmark 06 and other benchmarks" so they will lose bragging rights. personally i think the MB makers will find a way around this, otherwise they won't product high-end boards, and lost out on the high end market which by their standards isn't that big, but it fuels progress

No they wont because they will get the oc champs an LGA 1336 that does support overclocking on and they will make sure that it thrashes out whatever AMD put out there.

It is the smaller sockets that won't support the oc.

WillSpengler · 24 Apr 2008 at 13:52

fothsn said:
That’s true But there aren’t many people that can but QX chips that are unlocked, you would probably would see a load move over to AMD.

Maybe some in the enthusiast market, just because they need to be able to tinker . . . even when the tinkered version they had would still be poorer than the stock intel

Fothsn · 24 Apr 2008 at 13:54

mdjmcnally said:
No they wont because they will get the oc champs an LGA 1336 that does support overclocking on and they will make sure that it thrashes out whatever AMD put out there.

It is the smaller sockets that won't support the oc.

Yeah it’s a bit like the QX chips and normal ones, it’s like saying you can overclock these but the normal ones have features in them stopping you overclock etc.