Intel to shut down renegade Skylake overclocking with microcode update

LordPablo · 12 Feb 2016 at 13:05

What's the likelihood that someone will figure out how to fully disable Win10 updates?

Hagar · 12 Feb 2016 at 14:49

marc2003 said:
The problem is that just about everyone wants AMD to bring something to the table but they aren't prepared to finance it.

The last Intel desktop processor I bought new for myself was probably a 486DX2 66

I do have a small DELL laptop with 'Intel inside'.

hyperseven · 12 Feb 2016 at 15:04

LordPablo said:
What's the likelihood that someone will figure out how to fully disable Win10 updates?

Does services.msc -> 'windows update' -> set to disabled not work?

Mei · 12 Feb 2016 at 16:02

i do hate microsoft try to force this stuff
makes them less likable than intel to me lol

their last update that i had no choice about broke my default set programs
and it forcing defender on you after each reboot is wow!

fascists!

8 Pack · 19 Feb 2016 at 21:59

On ASrock OC formula you can even select the microcode you want to run at start up.

K SKU should mean
BINNED CPU Cores/ Cache
NO DDR3 Memory Controller
NO IGP
SOldered IHS

This is the only reason Intel should be asking more for K SKU chips. By making a better Chip for enthusiasts.

Bossman · 20 Feb 2016 at 16:19

8 Pack said:
On ASrock OC formula you can even select the microcode you want to run at start up.

Do you know if this is the case for any other ASRock z170 boards?

humbug · 20 Feb 2016 at 17:26

marc2003 said:
The problem is that just about everyone wants AMD to bring something to the table but they aren't prepared to finance it.

Yeah, plenty people moan about AMD not being competitive, but if and when they are those same people will go on buying Intel anyway.......

I have no sympathy for people like that.

AMD can never be competitive if too many people are Intel loyal, Intel fanbois will always pay high prices for their CPU's if AMD don't regain significant market share.

cause and effect.

Martini1991 · 20 Feb 2016 at 17:28

humbug said:
Yeah, plenty people moan about AMD not being competitive, but if and when they are those same people will go on buying Intel anyway.......

I have no sympathy for people like that.

AMD can never be competitive if too many people are Intel loyal, Intel fanbois will always pay high prices for their CPU's if AMD don't regain significant market share.

cause and effect.

Based on what? Humbugs magic crystal ball?

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 20 Feb 2016 at 17:39

Martini1991 said:
Based on what? Humbugs magic crystal ball?

Well,if you consider the Phenom II X4 for example - I knew plenty of people who would buy a Q9300 or Q9550 over a cheaper Phenom II X4 955BE,and the IPC difference was not massive like it was now,and that was a time AMD even had features like SATA3.0,etc in more abundance in their motherboards. Then there are people who bought E5000 series over the Athlon II X3 series,and they were awesome chips.

Martini1991 · 20 Feb 2016 at 17:53

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Well,if you consider the Phenom II X4 for example - I knew plenty of people who would buy a Q9300 or Q9550 over a cheaper Phenom II X4 955BE,and the IPC difference was not massive like it was now,and that was a time AMD even had features like SATA3.0,etc in more abundance in their motherboards. Then there are people who bought E5000 series over the Athlon II X3 series,and they were awesome chips.

Well, there's a bit to go over in this post (Like the Phenom II's price wasn't that much cheaper than a Q9550, like 10-15 quid, DDR3, AMD AM2+ boards, Socket 1366 etc and basically quite a lot of surrounding information lol about the state of things at that time). I don't think it's just as simple as what you're trying to say.
I also think it's a bit of a stretch to call Athlon II X3 series awesome lol. Fair enough if you managed to get a working Deneb, but otherwise, meh.

But I imagine there are people who won't give AMD a second thought, but to chuck a blanket statement out there is absurd.

humbug · 20 Feb 2016 at 18:03

Martini1991 said:
Based on what? Humbugs magic crystal ball?

Its always been like that, The Skt 478 P4 HT was a hot, slow, unstable pile of crap compared with the cool, fast, stable Athlon XP.... this was well known at the time and yet AMD Athlon owners were still in the minority compared with P4 owners.

I was one of those Intel loyalists in a club of other Intel loyalists in utter denial.

This until i got sick of the thing, i switched to an Athlon 3200+ and was blown away by it.

Some people will switch to Zen if its any good but a lot more would still rather pay over the odds to have Intel, and i have no sympathy for them.
Hell i think Vishera gets a bad rep, its not anything like as bad or as slow as people make out, i had one for 2 years.

Martini1991 · 20 Feb 2016 at 18:05

True enthusiasts won't just stick to Intel if Intel don't offer what they want for their money.
Which is why the 4XXX and 5XXX were so good for AMD (But in typical AMD fashion, they failed to follow it up)

I have no interest on whatever Intels next line up is. Couldn't care about Broadwell or Skylake (Though I've used an i5 Skylake K chip and was impressed in what it was overall, but it's overpriced etc)
I can't see AMD's enthusiast Zen line up launching this year despite the noise. All feels very familiar to Bulldozer for me. Hopefully it's good, and I'm interested.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 20 Feb 2016 at 18:08

Martini1991 said:
Well, there's a bit to go over in this post (Like the Phenom II's price wasn't that much cheaper than a Q9550, like 10-15 quid, DDR3, AMD AM2+ boards, Socket 1366 etc and basically quite a lot of surrounding information lol about the state of things at that time). I don't think it's just as simple as what you're trying to say.
I also think it's a bit of a stretch to call Athlon II X3 series awesome lol. Fair enough if you managed to get a working Deneb, but otherwise, meh.

But I imagine there are people who won't give AMD a second thought, but to chuck a blanket statement out there is absurd.

Doesn't matter it was still cheaper,had a better stock cooler(techreport actually overclocked a bit on it),the motherboards were generally cheaper especially for things like SATA3.0,XFire,etc and so on.

The socket 1366 platform had massively expensive motherboards and this was in a time when £70 to £80 motherboards were considered decent overclocking ones,not like £100 to £150 ones like now.

Plus the difference between DDR2 and DDR3 was not massive at launch(unlike the Phenom II X6),so once you took all the information into consideration it was cheaper and more bang for buck. The first generation Phenom II X4 chips prefer lower latency DDR2 to DDR3.

I should know,having had the arguments with people over system platform price when doing a metric tons of full system builds here and on Hexus.

The Athlon II X3 chips were awesome - going from at least 10 examples mates used for various builds half unlocked and a few even hit close to 4GHZ.

Every single one of them stayed viable for gaming more than the E5000 series builds I saw and not even many of them were as magical overclockers as people thought they were,which were considered the "defacto" normal operation of many.

The point is AMD would have to do another Athlon 64 moment - anything less and if they are comparable to Intel chips and cheaper,plenty of people will just buy Intel anyway. Pretty much the same with their graphics card sadly too!

Martini1991 · 20 Feb 2016 at 18:13

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Doesn't matter it was still cheaper,had a better stock cooler(techreport actually overclocked a bit on it),the motherboards were generally cheaper especially for things liek SATA3.0,XFire,ect and so on.

Plus the difference between DDR2 and DDR3 was not massive at launch(unlike the Phenom II X6),so once you took all the information into consideration it was cheaper and more bang for buck.

I should know,having had teh arguments with people over system platform price when doing a metric tons of full system builds here and on Hexus.

The Athlon II X3 chips were awesome - going from at least 10 examples mates used for various builds half unlocked and a few even hit close to 4GHZ.

Every single one of them stayed viable for gaming more than the E5000 series builds I saw and not even many of them were as magical overclockers as people thought they were.

DDR3 cost loads more than DDR2. It cost 100 quid for 4GB RAM when I bought a Phenom II X4 965 and a lovely AM3 790GX board, yet I'd paid 40 quid for a 4GB DDR2 kit on a Phenom II X4 940.

I definitely can understand people going for the Socket 775 set up over AM3 set ups. Even though I did go AM2+/AM3 (But there were tons of us that went AMD in that era)

AMD's stock cooler was crap, it was loud and annoying. Only time I ever used Intel back then was an E5400 and their stock cooler by comparison was silent.

mmj_uk · 20 Feb 2016 at 18:15

AMD were actually very successful during the Phenom II X4/X6 period, it's not the consumers' fault that they then EOL'd them all for an underwhelming new architecture (which was supposed to be more efficient but wasn't) rather than building on that success.

AMD are paying for their own choices/mistakes and an arrogance that they can drive the industry in a particular direction (ie. heavy multi threading) just by shouting about it a lot in the media.

Martini1991 · 20 Feb 2016 at 18:16

mmj_uk said:
AMD were actually very successful during the Phenom II X4/X6 period, it's not the consumers fault that they then EOL'd them all for an underwhelming new architecture, rather than building on that success.

AMD are paying for their own choices/mistakes and an arrogance that they can drive the industry in a particular direction (ie. heavy multi threading), just by shouting about it a lot in the media.

That's what I thought too :confused:

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 20 Feb 2016 at 18:18

Martini1991 said:
DDR3 cost loads more than DDR2. It cost 100 quid for 4GB RAM when I bought a Phenom II X4 965 and a lovely AM3 790GX board, yet I'd paid 40 quid for a 4GB DDR2 kit on a Phenom II X4 940.

I definitely can understand people going for the Socket 775 set up over AM3 set ups. Even though I did go AM2+/AM3.

AMD's stock cooler was crap, it was loud and annoying. Only time I ever used Intel back then was an E5400 and their stock cooler by comparison was silent.

Emm?? Dude,you did not need to use DDR3. The Phenom II X4 had DDR2 and DDR3 memory controllers - the first release could not even run DDR2.

Most AM2 systems were DDR2 and TH showed the first Phenom II X4 chips show no performance penalty using DDR2:

http://media.bestofmicro.com/8/L/206373/original/image021.png
http://media.bestofmicro.com/8/M/206374/original/image022.png
http://media.bestofmicro.com/8/N/206375/original/image023.png

So,no I could not understand why someone would go for a more expensive,less well specced Q9550 at the time. I had numerous arguements with such people and in the end it literally came down "Intel is better" and not any other metric.

Martini1991 · 20 Feb 2016 at 18:20

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Emm?? Dude,you did not need to use DDR3. The Phenom II X4 had DDR2 and DDR3 memory controllers - the first release could not even run DDR££
.

I know.
AM3 was an almost entirely pointless platform, it had no exclusive CPU's.

humbug · 20 Feb 2016 at 18:23

Martini1991 said:
True enthusiasts won't just stick to Intel if Intel don't offer what they want for their money.
Which is why the 4XXX and 5XXX were so good for AMD (But in typical AMD fashion, they failed to follow it up)

I have no interest on whatever Intels next line up is. Couldn't care about Broadwell or Skylake (Though I've used an i5 Skylake K chip and was impressed in what it was overall, but it's overpriced etc)
I can't see AMD's enthusiast Zen line up launching this year despite the noise. All feels very familiar to Bulldozer for me. Hopefully it's good, and I'm interested.

AMD's market share compared to Intel is about 10% to 90% (don't know the figures but its probably about right)

If Zen has 90% the IPC to Intel at 70% the price what do you think the market share would look like?

Martini1991 · 20 Feb 2016 at 18:26

humbug said:
AMD's market share compared to Intel is about 10% to 90% (don't know the figures but its probably about right)

If Zen has 90% the IPC to Intel at 70% the price what do you think the market share would look like?

IPC won't be a real factor in AMD's marketshare with Zen.

AMD's marketshare isn't soley down to getting beaten by Intel in performance in the enthusiast sector, there's dozens of factors.