Pre clocked CPU's

[GJ02]

Is there a reason pre clocked CPU's are not manufactured?
If intel were to create a pre clocked CPU say at 4.0 and sell it as a chip on it's own with no cooler, on the terms that a non stock cooler is required to cool it.
I take it there are reason it's not been done just wondered why

 

[Muel]

I've no idea, it seems insane to me that Intel chips are clocked so low these days, AMD clock upto 3.4ghz when the highest they'll do on air is about 4ghz, so I can't work out why Intel don't do the same.

I realise at stock an i7 930 is still faster than a 965BE, but they could sell it clocked 40% higher than they do. They should at least do this with the EE chips, even the 980X is only like 3.33ghz, when they routinely overclock to 4.3+ghz on water?

 

[Jimbo Mahoney]

I would imagine it's all to do with reliability and, to a lesser extent, heat.

They need to be 110% certain that the CPUs are error-free when operating under standard conditions. As they push the operating speeds up, the heat increases as will the chance of errors.

If they (AMD/Intel) could produce faster chips with the same guarantee of stability, I'm sure they would. Not to mention if they were more lax about the chip quality, they could get more dies from a wafer (i.e. increase the yield), which would either allow increased profits or decreased cost.

But hey, the more headroom they leave, the better for us overclockers!

 

[Duke]

Because the market for it is too small. Those who know what they are doing will just OC a stock chip.

 

[Trunks9486]

And for competition too. Intel dont want to drive AMd out of the market. They just want to have them low enough that they barely make a profit.

 

[jorzeh]

Because not everyone has a good mainboard and clean PSU think of many of thease chips would end up RMAed back due to bad case cooling / cpu cooling / unphased power not to mention most of the time u need to overclock the voltage on the ram to get them to 4Ghz.. just a thought.

 

[McstylisT]

I've no idea, it seems insane to me that Intel chips are clocked so low these days, AMD clock upto 3.4ghz when the highest they'll do on air is about 4ghz, so I can't work out why Intel don't do the same.

I realise at stock an i7 930 is still faster than a 965BE, but they could sell it clocked 40% higher than they do. They should at least do this with the EE chips, even the 980X is only like 3.33ghz, when they routinely overclock to 4.3+ghz on water?

That is probably why i tend to believe. Why would they when the competition is beaten with a mere 2.8ghz compared to the AMD 3.4ghz.

They do this in ways off selling it as an i7 950 & 960 but the slap a premium price on it and slightly modify the multiplier. Essentially its probably the same base chip.

Intel give nothing away for free when they do not have too.

McT

 

[thingemajib]

higher clocks = more TDP.
i reckon its a juggling act - 3.4ghz at 125w sounds pretty good. a 4ghz chip sounds much better. but voltage increases exponentially with clocks (ie, at stock mine will do 3.6. to get it at 3.8 i need +25mv/1.4v and to get 4.0 i need +125mv/1.525v).

a 4ghz chip with say a 180w tdp suddenly sounds less appealing. never mind all the big companies like dell and hp that are suddenly gonna have to beef up their crappy motherboards for the extra power, raising costs more

 

[PermaBanned]

They are pre clocked.

 

[DavieJG]

could intel not also be leaving themselves some headroom incase they have problems with sandy bridge etc?

There is comfortably 1GHz they could add to something like the i5 750 which could be released later down the line as a new 'faster model' to tide them over if there are issues delaying the release of die shinks or new architectures.