Intel comments on overclocking lock

[saaya]

"Intel has done extensive evaluation of our 915G/P and 925X chipset products and have designed them to run robustly at 800FSB. Any use or operation of these chipsets beyond their specifications, including overclocking, has not been evaluated or validated by Intel. If a board provider decides to overclock their platform, they do so at their own risk, since this action will void the warranty for the Intel products. Additionally, from time to time, Intel may choose to implement functionality that helps to ensure that the Intel product experience is not degraded by those who may try to run our products out of spec."


product expirience? :stick:

[pik-ard v1.1]

aka:
"we wanted to make sure people dont underclock by 10%, but... oops, we stopped them from having a better product experience too."

:D

[zz64]

bad move by intel.....amd anyone?

[pik-ard v1.1]

well... how much of the market IS overclocking? does anyone really know?

most of the people buying computers arent gonna OC... then again, most people arent gonna jump on the 915/925 boards...

[Djuice]

well everyone i know who are into computer tries to overclock if they can, ands that quite alot. I've also tried to spread the word that overclocking can improve the performacne of your system with no cost at all.. So its really a benefit. Now intel coming and start overclocking-locking their mobo is a bad move, they have reasons, but it would encourage the enthusiast market to move to AMD get higher performance.

[Lithan]

In short, "We're a bunch of bleeping bleepers who will bleep you in the bleep just because we can. Bend over and bleep you little bleeps!"

The really funny part... Extreme overclocking was the only use for prescott whatsoever. Now they won't even have that. Makes me laugh. How long you think it will take until every intel platform that doesn't have this "feature" is discontinued? Or maybe they will do what amd did with their multi locks. You have to buy a $800 cpu to overclock with. Who could have suggested this feature to Intel... I wonder... who... ... Could it be.... SATAN!

[kromosto]

that is %100 logical from intel because this lgas cant compete with amd64s (with ln2 maybe in superpi :D) so i think they just wanted to say that "we dont want to go into a challenge with amd64s at overclocking arena because they will surely beat our cpus and then you ocers will start to say amd64 is better and we dont want this so by this move maybe you can say bad things about us but only that if you want oc from intel just wait for our new cpus which can beat amds"

thats what i understand

[DriveEuro]

Intel may choose to implement functionality that helps to ensure that the Intel product experience is not degraded by those who may try to run our products out of spec.
Yup, first multiplier locks. Now locks on how far we can push the chip. Before you know it the only thing we'll be able to change in RAM timings.

[gaddster]

next time I change CPU it'll be AMD. Intel have lost the plot regarding the enthusiasts.

[blinky]

Originally posted by kromosto
that is %100 logical from intel because this lgas cant compete with amd64s (with ln2 maybe in superpi :D) so i think they just wanted to say that "we dont want to go into a challenge with amd64s at overclocking arena because they will surely beat our cpus and then you ocers will start to say amd64 is better and we dont want this so by this move maybe you can say bad things about us but only that if you want oc from intel just wait for our new cpus which can beat amds"

thats what i understand that makes no sense...

so they would rather back out of the enthusiast market altogether to save face because they will surely lose to amd64?

first of all dothan has a good shot of competing
and they wont give up millions of dollars in revenue just to "save face". people will always blindly buy intel no matter which is faster because theyre a well known brand.

[texuspete00]

This isn't directed at anyone. I'll say it here because this thread is shorter and the point is pertinent to either.....

We can stop all the "we are only .00002% of the market" talks. It seems like a moot point whether true or not. How can one argue it is not bad business for intel to do this solely on the size of the enthusiast market. Think about it for a second, if we are so small and insignificant.... what's the need for the lock in the first place! This effects overclockers and overclockers only, there effort to stifle ours pretty much blasts this particular small insignificant market theory to pieces all by itself.

IMO, they want us to buy higher speed chips. How it effects there bottom line remains to be seen. Another theory of mine is intel making moves, much like moving the pins to on the motherboards, that can direct blame to mobo makers. After all, intel cpu's have been multi-locked and this hobby that effects there RMA counts have been perpetrated by robust OC options by mobo makers. The last points here are surely speculation but when one team of engineers at intel come up with something to stop us, asus & abit and the like have engineers working to undo it, we can be sure someone is taking notice of overclockers.

[kromosto]

dothans are very good i know

but enthusiast market is small so loosing it is not a problem for intel

anyway for this move from intel i only understand this because a company which makes ee cpus for only being at the top of benchmarks stops oc ?????

maybe my way of thinking is very very wrong

[texuspete00]

Thing I don't get is this opens doors for AMD. Sorry for the intel lovers but for the most part AMD has had the enthusiast market in hand for a while now. Look at the polls run at enthusiast sites. AMD has been trying to raise the perceived value of there cpu's and it is quite a balancing act to not lose the enthusiast market they already have... avoiding being perceived as another big bad wolf. I think this gives them some leeway to have there cake and eat it too. Looks like the wait time for affordable Socket 939 cpus has been extended.


In another light though this could be like putting the club on a car. A detterence where you hope most won't bother but a true thief (~OC'er) will have the right equipment to get around it (bolt cutters -> Abit boards) or able to do so on there own (lockpicks -> solder mods).

[afireinside]

Additionally, from time to time, Intel may choose to implement functionality that helps to ensure that the Intel product experience is not degraded by those who may try to run our products out of spec.

:stick: :stick: :stick: :stick: :stick: The only think they degrade when prevent me from running out of spec is my level of fun :stick: :stick: :stick: :stick: :stick:

[Soulburner]

It doesn't matter how small of a % the overclocking community is - what you guys are failing to see is that we are FREE ADVERTISING!

[kromosto]

for amd or intel ???

[comment]

Originally posted by Soulburner
It doesn't matter how small of a % the overclocking community is - what you guys are failing to see is that we are FREE ADVERTISING! As I see it "we" are "devertising" as much as free advertising. If U think I'm wrong please elaborate...

[Soulburner]

I'm talking about the overclocking community in general.

How much do you think FUGGER and Macci helped out Intel by having their P4EE systems at the #1 spots in the world in 3DMark?

Even non-overclockers see this as the word gets around...and they see that the EE is the fastest chip in the world.

Right now its pointing to AMD of course, but you get what I mean.

[MightyOne]

As most of my friends who turn to me for advice on PC parts are students, I have been recommending AMDs all along - P4 rigs don't exactly fall into the price range most students can afford ...

But I believe Intel is really :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:ing itself over with this: the only people who were going to buy Prescott/i925X/DDR2 in the near future are enthusiasts, and they won't do that now. I can't imagine anyone buying such a rig for office tasks. ;)

And apart from the advertising value of the enthusiasts, Intel is losing a customer base whose members usually buy a completely new system each year (on average) - compared to people who buy an outdated Celly rig every 5 years!!!

[Lithan]

Originally posted by Soulburner
I'm talking about the overclocking community in general.

How much do you think FUGGER and Macci helped out Intel by having their P4EE systems at the #1 spots in the world in 3DMark?

Even non-overclockers see this as the word gets around...and they see that the EE is the fastest chip in the world.

Right now its pointing to AMD of course, but you get what I mean.

Of course intel could just send hand-picked ES chips to Fugger and Macci (or whoever else is going to give them this free publicity) and have total control over the bull :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: image they project of their chips capabilities. I mean, look at the threads on Xtreme... someone with an ES chip posts a 21sec superpi and people start screaming about how wonderful Prescotts are because this person with a chip that noone else has a chance in hell of getting has a great score.

Intel fans had better start hoping that mobo manufacturers start putting some weight behind dothan desktop boards (and that dothans don't get this overclocking limit put on them too).

[Sphinx]

I think that we will be with AMD for these few (6-12) months! Overclocking never will die! :D

[lutjens]

The only thing that gets degraded by people overclocking madly (a la 2.4@3.2+) is Intel profits.

Think about it....they don't want you getting something for cheap that they can force you to pay big $$$ for.

It wouldn't be so bad, except that even the flagship Intel chips (EE) still don't give you the privilege of doing what you want with the clock of the chip, as they are all locked.

Think of how many more chips would be on top of the ORB if they were downward unlocked....:rolleyes:

[saaya]

Originally posted by lutjens
The only thing that gets degraded by people overclocking madly (a la 2.4@3.2+) is Intel profits.

Think about it....they don't want you getting something for cheap that they can force you to pay big $$$ for.

and thats the point intel doesnt get ,they CANT force anybody to buy their overpriced and overclocking locked chips as long as there is amd and as long as there are 875/865 boards wich perform pretty much the same as 915/925 boards anyways.

[lutjens]

They can try...their large portion of market share permits them to do almost anything they see fit. Face it, there are only two real choices, AMD and Intel. Intel knows they control the majority of the market and try to exercise that control whenever possible (remember Rambus).

There is a huge opportunity for AMD here to exploit the market Intel has turned its back on...us.

They are doing a good job of it...they just need to undercut Intel some more on price on the FX's and provide motherboards based on an AMD chipset, that utilizes a PCI-X bus (like Canterwood ES).

Aside from competition from AMD, the Taiwanese board makers need to collectively stand up to Intel. They need to keep doing what they're doing...exploiting Intel products to enable functionality that has been purposely disabled by Intel. They also need to use the chipsets and such in unapproved configurations (like Asus PC-DL Deluxe). This gives the consumer choice...and Intel can't do much to the board makers when they collectively stand up to Intel.

I'd really like to see a single (although a duallie would be good too:)) processor Xeon board....one with full PCI-X, all the overclocking options and goodies...the Xeon is downward unlocked remember...;)

If there was an overclockable board based on an AMD chipset for the FX that had PCI-X, I'd buy it in a heartbeat...:)

[HawainPanda]

its very true..that intel really did overprice their chips..at least last year...when the athlon xp vs the P4B and then P4C...the athlon xp were the same cost as the celerons..and they performed equally with the best p4...now...the pricing is alot better, but the mobo for 300..thats crazy and now they limit the freedom to oc...boo to intel

[Kanavit]

that's the main reason why i dont' o/c. running out of spec will void warranty and jeopardizes system integrity. i want my computer to be totally and completely bug free and problem free. that's why i buy intel.

[texuspete00]

uh... thats more a reaosn to find another forum than to buy intel. If anything they are at least choking the very people you associate with everyday. Can they do no wrong kanavit?

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by Kanavit
that's the main reason why i dont' o/c. running out of spec will void warranty and jeopardizes system integrity. i want my computer to be totally and completely bug free and problem free. that's why i buy intel.

u r @ the wrong place then!

[lalPOOO]

Kanavit, have you used/setup an amd system before? Theres no difference between the stability of the 2.

[Iridium192_217]

damn n00bs:shakes:

[Gef]

I've allways been a Intel "fan" but I have never had anything against AMD either.

After reading tests of the new stuff from Intel (which I hoped would be surprisingly good, but they weren't) and the OC lock, I really wonder what goes through their mind...I am dissapointed over Intel. I wonder what's next... :rolleyes:

[Karnivore]

Well no news here, we first read about this some months back, next thing to be implemented is that bios crap that checks to see if your GF is wearing Approved panties..

Just another reason why my current Intel rig is the last money Intel gets from me....

[Gef]

Originally posted by Karnivore
Well no news here, we first read about this some months back, next thing to be implemented is that bios crap that checks to see if your GF is wearing Approved panties..

Just another reason why my current Intel rig is the last money Intel gets from me.... I remember reading about the OC "lock" myself for a coupple of months ago, but I thought that I would whait untill this got confirmed by Intel. I hoped that Intel would ofcourse NOT put OC blocks on their boards. When this got confirmed by Intel that this was true, I became so god damn dissapointed that I thought the same thing: "Intel wont get more of my money unless they get a grip"

I think I'll stick to my rig for now...

[Çhrist0ph]

Originally posted by Kanavit
that's the main reason why i dont' o/c. running out of spec will void warranty and jeopardizes system integrity. i want my computer to be totally and completely bug free and problem free. that's why i buy intel.

Hundreds of people overclock and enjoy 100% system stability. It takes a small amount of luck and a some skill/knowledge,etc...

[Kanavit]

Originally posted by lalPOOO
Kanavit, have you used/setup an amd system before? Theres no difference between the stability of the 2. sadly , yes. i 've had an Athlon 1.2ghz thunderbird, 1.4ghz thunderbird, 800 mhz duron, AXP 2000+ home built. All VIA chipset mobos. i've had enough problems. Most were all small minor problems. but it added up. Nagging problems such as heat on older cores, software not properly running, it could be due to memory problem compatibility, and crushed cores. some could be my fault. but it didnt' happend when i went intel. Intel is fool proof.

i first switched over to Intel on a P4 2.0ghz northwood. At first i was started on how much slower it was opening applications, however i began to appreciate the P4 as time went by. stability and reliability. I had far less problems ever since.

Never considered going back. Intel processors are more supported.

[Karnivore]

Originally posted by Kanavit
All VIA chipset mobos.



LMAO, here lies the root of your Evil, depending on the board maker those boards could range from OK, to toss it in the trash first chance you get.. AMD, and lack of stability does NOT go hand in hand, buy decent gear, set it up right and stable=stable....

[saaya]

kanavit, havent you noticed how many threads there are on this forum with people complaining about incompability of their 865/875 boards with some memory? never heard of the ch5 bug on 875/865 boards that dont let you run them in async?

theres really no big diference between the systems ,at least not after nvidia entered the market!

oh and about the "total bugfree stable system" , check the latest news ;)

intel and all large resellers (dell newegg etc) are withdrawing all ich6r based boards and are calling the ones already sold back, because theres a serious bug in the southbridge! ;)

and check this news:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16823

intel just posted the bug report of their latest prescott stepping, and it contains more serious bugs than any other intel cpu to date, and for most of them there is still no fix available!

so think twice before you upgrade to a new prescott system ;)

[Çhrist0ph]

Originally posted by Kanavit
some could be my fault

hmm, crushed cores? excessive heat?

edit:

oh yeah, ;)

Originally posted by saaya
kanavit, havent you noticed how many threads there are on this forum with people complaining about incompability of their 865/875 boards with some memory? never heard of the ch5 bug on 875/865 boards that dont let you run them in async?

theres really no big diference between the systems ,at least not after nvidia entered the market!

oh and about the "total bugfree stable system" , check the latest news ;)

intel and all large resellers (dell newegg etc) are withdrawing all ich6r based boards and are calling the ones already sold back, because theres a serious bug in the southbridge! ;)

and check this news:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16823

intel just posted the bug report of their latest prescott stepping, and it contains more serious bugs than any other intel cpu to date, and for most of them there is still no fix available!

so think twice before you upgrade to a new prescott system ;)

:rolleyes:

[Kanavit]

I maybe wrong in my assertion regarding AMD stability, but i'm merely stating my personal experience with it. I have not compiled precise number of problems on either side. I just do remember a lot of incompatibility problems with AMD rigs i've built , more than intel ones. It may have nothing to do with either company. but thats just from my experience. Intel systems seems to be more stable. Probably because of their level of standard is more strict. Intel have more elaborate testing program.

[Karnivore]

Originally posted by Kanavit
Intel systems seems to be more stable. Probably because of their level of standard is more strict. Intel have more elaborate testing program.


:rolleyes:

[Kanavit]

Originally posted by Karnivore
:rolleyes: let me explain. More funding and resources will naturally allow more thorough testing and evaluation before going retail and released. restricted budget hinders money for testing and forcing to skip some important tests. AMD's budget is much smaller than Intels. That's why the original A64 fX-51 had to use registered memory in needed error checking.

[Çhrist0ph]

Originally posted by Kanavit
I maybe wrong in my assertion regarding AMD stability, but i'm merely stating my personal experience with it. I have not compiled precise number of problems on either side. I just do remember a lot of incompatibility problems with AMD rigs i've built , more than intel ones. It may have nothing to do with either company. but thats just from my experience. Intel systems seems to be more stable. Probably because of their level of standard is more strict. Intel have more elaborate testing program.

um, yeah...amd has crap for quality control.

:stick:

[thirdeye]

if we're going to dismiss user error in Kan's case, (although we probably shouldn't, lots of ppl use AMD boards @ stock with no probs) I have to point to his choice of MOBO's. jump and point. I don't understand why people don't consider their board purchase more thoroughly. I am an intel guy, at least until now, but I don't just buy a P4 and stick it in a $55 crap board and expect good results.

face it, a motherboard should be an investment, and you should buy quality.

btw, until reading about this OC lock BS I was in the market for a new P4, hoping for a little extra horsepower over my 2.6. WAS being the operative word. come on AMD, let's have some reasonable CH prices.

Originally posted by Kanavit
Intel is fool proof.

if foolproof is something you need...umm nevermind. :stick:

[Karnivore]

Originally posted by Kanavit
let me explain. More funding and resources will naturally allow more thorough testing and evaluation before going retail and released. restricted budget hinders money for testing and forcing to skip some important tests. AMD's budget is much smaller than Intels. That's why the original A64 fX-51 had to use registered memory in needed error checking.


Kanavit, you obviously don't know ahelluvalot when it comes microchip design..

Not to mention the thourough testing they did on a very recently recalled chipset ;)

Could you please tell me what "IMPORTANT TESTS" AMD has skipped?

[STEvil]

Seeing as the FX-51 was an Opteron and based on 940 pins, not 754...... gee, that whole argument just went out the window, too!

:rolleyes:

[Çhrist0ph]

Originally posted by Kanavit
let me explain. More funding and resources will naturally allow more thorough testing and evaluation before going retail and released. restricted budget hinders money for testing and forcing to skip some important tests. AMD's budget is much smaller than Intels. That's why the original A64 fX-51 had to use registered memory in needed error checking.

AMD just wanted to get A64 FX on the market ASAP so they used opterons. Not a mistake or lack of funding, just a timed market move. They didnt want to wait till 939, they wanted to bust out the BIG GUNS ASAP!

where do you get this from, seriously? no offense, but you post so much nonsense.

[The Virus]

Kanavit, no offense but you sound like a real noob who doesnt know jack about pc components. You cant just buy an amd or intel cpu and throw it in any mobo like the one with via chipset which until now are evolving with pci/agp lock method. For the past 3-6 months both my intel and amd gaming rigs are running without a single glitch and both are overclocked to max on air. My 2.6ghz p4 runs at a healthy 3.6ghz and 2600xp mobile at 2.7ghz without a singel crash. You just have to know what your buying before you can start overclocking and expecting awsome results and not to mention that most people who are complaining are noobs who are using 250w-300w psu and expect to see so much out of it. Sad.

[Parradux]

Kan.

Before you spew out more nonsense, I advise you, please purchase another AMD setup, something recent. And test it to your standards. You will see nothing wrong with it, and even if you go with the 64 bit route, you will see AMD destorying Intel in preformance.

And regarding your AMD experince, it is your fault that they ran so faulty, you bought piss poor boards for stabablitiy, and preformance.

I can do the same thing with Intel, and vouch that AMD is more stable.

As saaya said, take a look at the report, its filled with bugs that cannot be addressed, as well as recalling all the motherboards due to improper testing on the southbridges.

[blinky]

Originally posted by lutjens
They can try...their large portion of market share permits them to do almost anything they see fit. Face it, there are only two real choices, AMD and Intel. Intel knows they control the majority of the market and try to exercise that control whenever possible (remember Rambus).

There is a huge opportunity for AMD here to exploit the market Intel has turned its back on...us.

They are doing a good job of it...they just need to undercut Intel some more on price on the FX's and provide motherboards based on an AMD chipset, that utilizes a PCI-X bus (like Canterwood ES).

Aside from competition from AMD, the Taiwanese board makers need to collectively stand up to Intel. They need to keep doing what they're doing...exploiting Intel products to enable functionality that has been purposely disabled by Intel. They also need to use the chipsets and such in unapproved configurations (like Asus PC-DL Deluxe). This gives the consumer choice...and Intel can't do much to the board makers when they collectively stand up to Intel.

I'd really like to see a single (although a duallie would be good too:)) processor Xeon board....one with full PCI-X, all the overclocking options and goodies...the Xeon is downward unlocked remember...;)

If there was an overclockable board based on an AMD chipset for the FX that had PCI-X, I'd buy it in a heartbeat...:) its PCI-E, sorry i had to do that. PCI-X is a 64-bit PCI that server boards have been using for some time.


oh and kanavit, i think u need to lurk more, ur spewing nonsense

[Çhrist0ph]

lets face it people. Aside from $1000 cpu's, Intel is now the brand of choice.....for your Grandma!:D
j/k I hope Dothan can put up a good fight...like next year

[STEvil]

My grandma runs an AMD.. and so does my mom ;)

In fact, the only people around me that I see running Intel are either running old systems (P3) or their parents bought it for them and they dont have a clue as to what each component inside the case is even...

[saaya]

Originally posted by STEvil
My grandma runs an AMD.. and so does my mom ;)

In fact, the only people around me that I see running Intel are either running old systems (P3) or their parents bought it for them and they dont have a clue as to what each component inside the case is even...

same here, and i know at least 100 people with pcs. more like 250

[Çhrist0ph]

ok ok. you got me. But you know what i mean ;)

[lutjens]

Intel's latest effort to ram this new technology down our throat is going to backfire on them for a number of reasons.

1) Insisting on PCI-Express is going to seriously annoy Intel's corporate customers. While their budgets are substantial, the IT managers that do the purchasing are regulated by cost (spend too much and you'll catch hell). I think they'll be looking seriously at AMD's server solutions that maintain PCI-X when they upgrade their servers. It is a much cheaper route than risking RAID arrays and the reliability of their networks on a large unknown like PCI-Express. They'll take the cheaper, better performing AMD solution that allows them to use their existing storage setup to upgrade datacenters and departmental servers. The corporate market is Intel's bread and butter...annoy them, and they will regret it. Losses for Intel in this sector are doubly hurtful to Intel, as whatever Intel loses, AMD will gain. As IT managers shed their fears of AMD in the server arena, they'll very likely purchase AMD products in the future, further eroding Intel's dominance.

2) Socket 775 will undoubtedly have issues. Damage to the socket itself has happened already in trials and will occur again once the boards hit mainstream. The only real question in this area is the quantity of damaged sockets. Too many, and the price of motherboards could soar (as board makers seek to make up for the lost profits due to RMA's). This will slash demand and effectively Intel will shoot themselves squarely in the foot.

3) Their overclocking locks severely annoy us as enthusiasts. Not a big deal, to be sure. But there are a good many people who are not so learned about computers as we enthusiasts are (co-workers, friends, family, etc). They often rely on our advice to make their next computer purchase. I can't speak for anyone else, but I can say with certainty that Intel will never be recommended by me again to anyone. I will encourage them to use AMD products wherever possible, as AMD will give them better performance and value. Multiply this scerario a few thousand times or more and you'll quickly begin to see a shift in attitudes away from Intel and toward AMD. Intel is not invulnerable and will bend to market demand (remember Rambus). People will begin to request AMD and large OEMs like Dell will have little choice but to comply with the demand.

Not all of us enthusiasts would have recommended AMD at all times in the past (myself included), but as we purchase new AMD processors ourselves and use them, we'll be much more willing to recommend them. People like Kanavit who see AMD as being inferior will hopefully have their eyes opened and see that debating any real or perceived reliability difference between AMD and Intel is indeed quibbling over minutae.

[iceman2g]

Originally posted by Kanavit
that's the main reason why i dont' o/c. running out of spec will void warranty and jeopardizes system integrity. i want my computer to be totally and completely bug free and problem free. that's why i buy intel.

So why then are you here? Just a lil curious.

About perceived instabiliy that's the shame bs I got when I was putting together my first system a few years back. Buying a generic 250-400W psu and expecting the overclock with any form of stability is a waste of money. I went through 5 (three of which I killed) psu ranging from 300-460W all because they couldn't handle the loads thrown at them. Invest in quality, if in your case it's via then you might have some problems.

[blinky]

my enermax 350w has been with me for a while, it can take heavy loads, but... it did die on me once, and required an RMA :(

kanavit whats ur incentive for reading about OCing when u dont???

[NeGe0]

Originally posted by Kanavit
let me explain. More funding and resources will naturally allow more thorough testing and evaluation before going retail and released. restricted budget hinders money for testing and forcing to skip some important tests. AMD's budget is much smaller than Intels. That's why the original A64 fX-51 had to use registered memory in needed error checking.

Wow now that is just plain silly....it needed error checking memory because it was not fully tested....:stick:

Or maybe it was because they just used Opterons for the FX series, which were server chips, which use ecc memory.

Where do you get these great idea's from Kanavit?

[zakelwe]

I have to agree and say both VIA and nvidia AMD chipsets have been more problematical for AMD cpu's than Intels 865/875 have been for Intels P4.

The nforce2 took a while to be ironed out and the current VIA chipset for AMD64 is still being ironed out. Having said that the new nforce3 board i just got was the first one where I didn't have to sit down all night and play around to bend it to my will.

Saaya, you mention the Prescott bug but to be fair you should also mention the current AMD fix

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040624154452.html

Getting back to the locking issue, I just hope AMD do not follow suit, I don't think they will though. I don't even bother with what Intel do anymore, their cpu's are so weedy in comparison to AMD64 ( unless you get the EE ) with no sign of any big improvement, that they are not on my roadmap at ll.....

Regards

Andy

[Iridium192_217]

as for the overclocking lock, let us not forget that overclockers like us are a small percentage of the computer market.

[ant1]

If we are a small percentage, why do they lock the ocability. Shouldn´t bother them if some ocers fry their cpus.

[Kanavit]

Intel targets its products towards mainstream users. unfortunately enthusiast are not targeted.

AMD is geared more towards enthusiast.

I tweak, i don't OC. tweaking garnered me 2000 pts in Aquamark3 benchmark. that could be as good or better than most peoples OC..

its not my style to OC.

I'm just saying most people who are less knowledgable. on average, only a few are geniuses. the Elite dont' make money for intel. it's the dum people. That is why intel is buzzing Mhz, and hyperthreading. I admit I am less knowledgable. that is why i prefer Intel. they are fool proof.

AMD takes a little more skill and knowledge to master. This can make it look like they are less stable, since 99% population are only average in terms of knowledge. Prone to more mistakes in AMD setups can be blamed on chip itself.

Why did AMD make it hard for mainstream users? Weird instructions, 64bit tech? too confusing for most average users.
PR rating systems that even confuse even more. Trust is earned , not given. saying that a 1.8ghz is as fast as a 3.0ghz chip, requires trust.

I come to this forum, because of hard ware news, knowledge on good steppings and new technology. Not to o/c.

[pik-ard v1.1]

"Intel targets its products towards mainstream users. unfortunately enthusiast are not targeted."

P4EE anyone? i thought they even said that was targeted towards the enthusiast market...

2k points in aquamark isnt all that hard to get on even a mild OC... i went from 7k to 10k(yea... i know.....) from 100 extra mhz on my cpu, and +6/+10 on my gfx card...

"That is why intel is buzzing Mhz, and hyperthreading"

see your OWN sig on that one...

i dont see how amd takes any more knowledge to master...

64bit tech confusing? i dont see how. people see that compared to intels "slow" 32bit, and thinks that a64 is faster immediately.

well, both intel and amd are moving to use a sort of number system. though intels is MORE confusing...

"i have an intel 520!"
"um... 520 what? mhz? ghz? watts?"

[Kanavit]

Originally posted by pik-ard v1.1
"Intel targets its products towards mainstream users. unfortunately enthusiast are not targeted."

P4EE anyone? i thought they even said that was targeted towards the enthusiast market...

2k points in aquamark isnt all that hard to get on even a mild OC... i went from 7k to 10k(yea... i know.....) from 100 extra mhz on my cpu, and +6/+10 on my gfx card...

"That is why intel is buzzing Mhz, and hyperthreading"

see your OWN sig on that one...

i dont see how amd takes any more knowledge to master...

64bit tech confusing? i dont see how. people see that compared to intels "slow" 32bit, and thinks that a64 is faster immediately.

well, both intel and amd are moving to use a sort of number system. though intels is MORE confusing...

"i have an intel 520!"
"um... 520 what? mhz? ghz? watts?" The P4 EE was made to satisfy a few enthusiasts, and serve mostly as a strong physcological factor , since Intel will only make a few of these chips hence the Pricing. THe P4 EE was designed to steal the steam from the new Athlon 64 which it had successfully accomplished. The P4 EE is not over abundantly available, u must be really searching to find one. Go to compusa, best buy, or even local computer shop, chances are u won't find one.

Model number is not confusing since it still goes by higher is better number. Its' the same as the Airbus A319, A320, A340, and so on higher is better or BMW 540i, BMW 740. Intel is not using mhz as representation for
processor performance anymore, since the Dothan was introduced, to make it less confusing for the average joe, they implemented Model numbering system which will be easily understood.

btw, the model number system will make it harder for AMD compare PR rating vs mhz now since mhz is no longer labeled. making it harder for consumers to relate processor performance between the two.

[bias_hjorth]

Originally posted by Kanavit


btw, the model number system will make it harder for AMD compare PR rating vs mhz now since mhz is no longer labeled. making it harder for consumers to relate processor performance between the two.


I´ll bet Intel will go same way when next gen comes around.. And it has been that way the last years with AMD.. cant really see why it should make it harder in any way,..

[pik-ard v1.1]

picking numbers to represent processers, where that number has no correlation with the processor speed, or real preformance isnt easier to understand.

celerons are 3xx, prescotts are 5xx, i think dothans are 7xx... but what happens when you want to compare a 550, to say... a 730. that doesnt tell you which one will preform better.

you could say 50 is greater then 30, or 700 is greater then 500... however, if they were speeds, such as 3.4ghz(i think 540, not sure), and i have no idea if there even IS a 730, or what it might run at...(nice confusion there, eh?)

so, if you know speeds, and know to get the same preformance, you can roughly multiply dothan speed by 1.5(just picking a number), and thats how fast a prescott needs to go in order to match it, that not hard to do, or remember.

how many people do you think are going to want to memorize what number means what, and what speed is what number? not many... i would assume.

now, take athlons, 3200+, ok... people know that preforms ABOUT on par with a 3.2ghz P4.

btw... oh look (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-116-169&depa=1), a P4EE in stock... that was real hard to find...

most OC'ers wont even shop at stores like compusa, or best buy, and those that do, dont need the power, so why should it be there? eh?

[Kanavit]

the P4 EE is a rebadged Xeon 2mb DP processor. all intel did was repackaged it to fit sokcet 478. that shows u how much they care about the enthusiast market. EE costs $1000 and the multiplyer is locked. A64 is entirely new totally different socket, new techonology. If Intel really cared about the enthusiast market, they would have done more.

THe model number was designed to replace frequency as a form of identifying processor performance. So never use frequency anymore to judge processor, use model numbers. Higher is still better.

[Karnivore]

Originally posted by zakelwe
I have to agree and say both VIA and nvidia AMD chipsets have been more problematical for AMD cpu's than Intels 865/875 have been for Intels P4.

Umm, and just how many Chipsets have we seen prior to the 865/875 boards? Not all of them ran perfectly, and even less offered decent OC performance.. The 865/875 P4C brought Intel back into many AMD homes...


Originally posted by zakelwe
The nforce2 took a while to be ironed out and the current VIA chipset for AMD64 is still being ironed out. Having said that the new nforce3 board i just got was the first one where I didn't have to sit down all night and play around to bend it to my will.

Saaya, you mention the Prescott bug but to be fair you should also mention the current AMD fix

And to be fair we also may as well mention the Floating point issue with the early P4....

The point is, no company is immune to mistakes. Early AMD systems WERE NOT unstable, perhaps not as noob friendly.. If you bought decent hardware, and set up correctly it runs perfectly stable..


Everyone who says the Enthusiast/OC'er is a small and insignificant part of the market had better take a step back and take another look at the current trend....

Not long ago I would have agreed with the previous statement, however look at the direction the market is going. We are a growing force, The hardcore are still very limited in number, but add all the newb overclockers, all the friends who come running when upgrade time comes, then all the friends of friends, the list can go on...

Directly or indirectly MY opinions reach a pretty damn large number of people. Both in RL, and a number of non-hardware-related sites I visit. I think many of you are in the same situation..

[pik-ard v1.1]

Originally posted by Kanavit
the P4 EE is a rebadged Xeon 2mb DP processor. all intel did was repackaged it to fit sokcet 478. that shows u how much they care about the enthusiast market. EE costs $1000 and the multiplyer is locked. A64 is entirely new totally different socket, new techonology. If Intel really cared about the enthusiast market, they would have done more.
so are you for intel, or against it :D

THe model number was designed to replace frequency as a form of identifying processor performance. So never use frequency anymore to judge processor, use model numbers. Higher is still better.
not true. read intels info on processor numbers (here (http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/)), and it tells you:
What It Isn't: A way to compare numbers across processor families

now, a 560(3.6ghz), is probably alot better then a 710 (probably about 1ghz, being in the centrino family, and 7xx covering down to the ultra low voltage.

higher is not always better.

users || intel
\/-----\/
:smileysex

[Kanavit]

Originally posted by pik-ard v1.1
so are you for intel, or against it :D


not true. read intels info on processor numbers (here (http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/)), and it tells you:
What It Isn't: A way to compare numbers across processor families

now, a 560(3.6ghz), is probably alot better then a 710 (probably about 1ghz, being in the centrino family, and 7xx covering down to the ultra low voltage.

higher is not always better.

users || intel
\/-----\/
:smileysex

Celeron uses 3xx

Prescott uses 5xx

Dothan and P4 EE uses 7xx

i don't see how that corrolates to mhz. It's based on processor performance and model type.

560
5 is model and 60 is 3.6ghz frequency

540

5 is model, and 40 is 3.4ghz frequnecy.

the meaning of these labels are for intel internally and not meant for public. publicly higher model numbers mean better performance.

[enzoR]

AMD's rating is much simpler since you know exactly what it means. btw WTH are you doing on Xtreme anyway?

[Kanavit]

Originally posted by enzoR
AMD's rating is much simpler since you know exactly what it means. btw WTH are you doing on Xtreme anyway? I come to learn, and also share info about computer hardware.

AMDs rating system is no better than Intels.

Opteron 148, 248, 848.

A64 FX-51, FX-53? what does that mean?

Athlon xp 3200+ 512kb(2.2ghz), Athlon 64 3000+ 512kb(2.0ghz) Athlon 64 3200+ 1mb(2.0ghz). ??? Athlon 64 3700+ 1mb L2( 2.4ghz) Athlon 64 3800+ 512kb L2(2.4ghz)

3 different sockets in 1 year:
754, socket 462, socket 940, socket 939.

[pik-ard v1.1]

Originally posted by Kanavit

540

5 is model, and 40 is 3.4ghz frequnecy.
im pretty sure that the 3.4ghz is 550.

560 = 3.6ghz

550 = 3.4ghz

540 = 3.2ghz

530 = 3.0ghz

yes, i had to go look those up. well... i found 530 on newegg by chance, and 560 = 3.6ghz, so i figured out the rest.

and im sure that 760's arent gonna be 3.6ghz, nor 730's be 3.0ghz, its NOT constant, and thus, NOT as simple as just listing ghz everywhere. the mass market has gotten used to ghz... just tell them that pentium M ghz are worth more then prescott ghz, and they are set...

opterons arent for the average user... so they can "afford" to be a little more complicated. and the first number tells X-way opteron.

FX-5x, well, thats just setting them above from the rest.

a64 3200+ being different clock/cache, well, thats not that difficult, but it still gives you a rounded total speed.(~3.2ghz on intel), same with the others.

[Kanavit]

Originally posted by pik-ard v1.1
im pretty sure that the 3.4ghz is 550.

560 = 3.6ghz

550 = 3.4ghz

540 = 3.2ghz

530 = 3.0ghz

yes, i had to go look those up. well... i found 530 on newegg by chance, and 560 = 3.6ghz, so i figured out the rest.

and im sure that 760's arent gonna be 3.6ghz, nor 730's be 3.0ghz, its NOT constant, and thus, NOT as simple as just listing ghz everywhere. the mass market has gotten used to ghz... just tell them that pentium M ghz are worth more then prescott ghz, and they are set... thx Picard,
You are right, like i said earlier, the meaning is for Intel internally. publicly, number value is more important.

[pik-ard v1.1]

the meaning of WHAT? the numbers? that defeats the purpose

more important then WHAT? ghz? no it isnt.

(i edited a bit in my last post, see the last few sentences)

[Kanavit]

Originally posted by pik-ard v1.1
the meaning of WHAT? the numbers? that defeats the purpose

more important then WHAT? ghz? no it isnt.

(i edited a bit in my last post, see the last few sentences) meaning to classify its processors properly.

[texuspete00]

Originally posted by ant1
If we are a small percentage, why do they lock the ocability. Shouldn´t bother them if some ocers fry their cpus.

Yep, I said the same thing on page 1. STOP THE WE DONT COUNT BS! THE TOPIC PROVES THAT WRONG BY DEFINITION!

Or at least rebut a statement other than say we don't count again, again, and again. Just sounds like no reading is going on sometimes. We've been talking about it in detail.... want to debate it, do so, but why the broken record effect. No one has to agree with me but lets offer something new.

[Lithan]

1. Kanivit must be from overclockers.com. I remember back when Athlon XP's were keeping up with P4's that cost 2-3 times as much, there were two arguements. Amd Mobo's cost more (which was BS. They would use the most expensive amd board which noone owned and compair it to the cheapest intel board which none of them used because it was complete s***.) And the other argument that at least half of overclockers.com intel using population made was that intels were more stable. Which incidentally, everyone who knows anything at all about computers simply laughs at.

2. My computer is more stable than anyone I know who runs their system stock. Because my computer has been thoroughly tested for stability and is much better cooled.

3. "Nagging problems such as heat on older cores," Intels current cpus give off MUCH more heat than amd's ever did. Why aren't you complaining now?

4. "software not properly running," Umm... yeah, you f'ed something up.

5. "it could be due to memory problem compatibility," I ever tell you of the time I bought no less than sixteen different sticks of ram and my IS7 didn't like ANY of them?

6. "and crushed cores. some could be my fault." Yah think?

7. "but it didnt' happend when i went intel. Intel is fool proof." Running stock, whatever you buy is foolproof. Hell, Cyrix 5x86 cpu's were probably foolproof. If you can manage to screw up building a stock system... You should not be building systems. You should be running a dell with onboard video and an uberpowerful 3ghz celeron processor.(Three Ghz! WOW!) You ever consider the fact that you had built (and F'ed up) some-odd amd systems before meant you had finally figured out how not to F the system up when you went intel? Just seems common sense to me.

[saaya]

please dont let this end in an amd vs intel thread. thx :D

[NeGe0]

I think it's turning out to be more of an Us v Kanavit thread....

[enzoR]

now i know why he got baned brom the futuremark forums :rolleyes:

Kanavit, maybe you should join intel's marketing team. i'm sure you'd do a very good job there helping spread BS about how great DD2 is, BTX (make sure you say WHY intel needs BTX), socket T, and how prescotts long pipeline makes it so great. :rolleyes:

[Çhrist0ph]

"I come to learn, and also share info about computer hardware."

share what? more crazy talk?

[Parradux]

Originally posted by Çhrist0ph
"I come to learn, and also share info about computer hardware."

share what? more crazy talk?

And if he was learning he'd shut up with his Intel fanboyism.

[tylerhskate]

this is rediculous, we pay a large amount of money for these chips and we should be able to do whatever the hell we want to do with them once their in our hands :\

[lalPOOO]

You guys need to stop flaming Kanavit... its one thing to make a point, its another to be a d*ck ;)
I admit what I said before may have come off as a flame but I was honestly interested in his answer.
This desicion on intel's part was pretty illogical.

[zabomb4163]

Originally posted by Iridium192_217
as for the overclocking lock, let us not forget that overclockers like us are a small percentage of the computer market.

hmm

overclockers.com = 45,302 members
[H] forums = 19,194 members
Xtreme systems = ~7,000 members

total - 71,000

assume each member affects an average of 5 processor purchases per year 355K processors*100$ per chip. 36 million dollar influence from 3 forums. :)

unfortunately intel had 30 billion dollars income in 2003 alone (5.6billion profit)

3 forums comes out to 0.0012% of their revenue. even if you increase that influence by 100 fold your still 1/10th of a percent.

[enzoR]

well their are about 2000 more communities....

[IvanAndreevich]

zabomb4163
I agree with your thinking. Every year over a dozen people ask me what to buy and if I don't happen to like Intel, Intel isn't getting any money from people who ask me.

Barton over Celeron, A64 over Pentium 4, anything over a Prescott :D

However, profit isn't everything. There is also prestige. Forums like this bring or take a lot of prestige from a company. When a company loses the respect of the enthusiast, the mainstream will fall. Especially, when the competitor (AMD) has better chips in that segment. AMD is gaining fame and respect - both through the overclocking community and the server market. Where is Intel with their Prescott (ouch, it burns), Itanium (this is one HOT chip) and Nocona (yes, we will emulate 64 bit AMD instruction and claim we are faster all for a small price of 150W and $1000)?

Kanavit
Damn, do you actually believe what you say or are you kidding?

[NeGe0]

Originally posted by zabomb4163
hmm

overclockers.com = 45,302 members
[H] forums = 19,194 members
Xtreme systems = ~7,000 members

total - 71,000

assume each member affects an average of 5 processor purchases per year 355K processors*100$ per chip. 36 million dollar influence from 3 forums. :)

unfortunately intel had 30 billion dollars income in 2003 alone (5.6billion profit)

3 forums comes out to 0.0012% of their revenue. even if you increase that influence by 100 fold your still 1/10th of a percent.

Yea but also think of how much companies spend on buying their garbage and all the other forums out there. Companies spend a lot of money on stuff they don't know is way overpriced and will work like garbage.

[HawainPanda]

most people just look at clock speeds...they see a 2.8 celeron..and an athlon 2800 (at 2.07 ghz..i think) and they go with celeron even though the athlon is at a cheaper price and much faster cpu, and this is the majority of the market anyways...at least amd's sale is increasing...a year ago...amd didn't even know if they could compete with intel anymore

[zakelwe]

I agree with Kanavit to some extent and that is that AMD chipsets are not for noobs, I don't agree with him on the AMD cpu is less worthy than the P4 line though.

Here's an example how the AMD chipsets are not for noobs, the MSI BIOS has a setting for "agressive" optimisation or "normal " ..which do you think is faster ? All noobs will set it to agressive but when I did my pifast time went from 61.25 to 61.75 ..doh !

If you set PAT in 875 or Taiwan OEM modded 865 you do get what it says on the tin.

Someone said earlier that before Intel 875 there were problems but then I counter with the Intel BX chipset :)

Intel BX with PIII using 100Mhz FSB overclocked with PC133 at 133Mhz bus + ..Oh those sunny days :) My 650 at 940Mhz rock solid , let me just once again slip on my rose tinted glasses ..

Regards

Andy

[Minnyboy]

Kanavit, you're getting burned bad here mate...

I have yet to experience any AMD CPU's properly (had a bit of a playaround with a 2500+/Asus A7N8X-E a while back), but I wouldn't class AMD as inferior...

Reading through the last couple of pages, that what has come across to me from your opinions...

As another Intel fanboy here, I believe Intel is getting their asses whipped left,right & centre by the competition lately...

And their marketing ploy is utter BS....

Forcing ppl on an upgrade path, erratas here & there, OC lock...

Intel get the big thumbs down for their tactics lately...

/still pats his trusty 2.6c & 3.0c... Last of the "good" Intel CPU's...
/rant mode off

[Karnivore]

Originally posted by zakelwe
I agree with Kanavit to some extent and that is that AMD chipsets are not for noobs, I don't agree with him on the AMD cpu is less worthy than the P4 line though.


Thats just plain silly, defaults loaded is about foolproof, there is no need to even enter the bios if your that big of a noob.... I know plenty of complete computer idiots who put together AMD systems without a hitch, when they do screw up its actually a higher percentage of Intel systems... Once upon a time your/kanavit's analogy may have been true, not anymore though...


Originally posted by zakelwe
Here's an example how the AMD chipsets are not for noobs, the MSI BIOS has a setting for "agressive" optimisation or "normal " ..which do you think is faster ? All noobs will set it to agressive but when I did my pifast time went from 61.25 to 61.75 ..doh !

If you set PAT in 875 or Taiwan OEM modded 865 you do get what it says on the tin.


Like that big of a noob is even going to notice a .50 difference, LOL... And depending on the motherboard you MAY, or MAY NOT get what you set in BIOS on the 865/875 chipset, and since you've already mentioned the KNOWN Quarky bios writer team of MSI the 865/875 boards are prime examples of this....

It is pretty damn typical of MSI to have screwed up bios settings, be it AMD or Intel...



Originally posted by zakelwe
Someone said earlier that before Intel 875 there were problems but then I counter with the Intel BX chipset :)

Intel BX with PIII using 100Mhz FSB overclocked with PC133 at 133Mhz bus + ..Oh those sunny days :) My 650 at 940Mhz rock solid , let me just once again slip on my rose tinted glasses ..

Regards

Andy


Honestly who really cares about Dinosaurs, they may be interesting to look at, some even enjoy playing with them, bottom line though... RIP.... I think Intel has been wearing those same Rose colored glasses....

[Lithan]

Originally posted by zabomb4163
hmm

overclockers.com = 45,302 members
[H] forums = 19,194 members
Xtreme systems = ~7,000 members

total - 71,000

Im sure there is some overlap there. As well as members who have more than one account for whatever reason.

assume each member affects an average of 5 processor purchases per year 355K processors*100$ per chip. 36 million dollar influence from 3 forums. :) I'd say an average of 2-3 is more likely, but an average price is probably closer to $150.

unfortunately intel had 30 billion dollars income in 2003 alone (5.6billion profit) Not all on its cpu's though.

3 forums comes out to 0.0012% of their revenue. even if you increase that influence by 100 fold your still 1/10th of a percent. I believe the numbers I've heard put private system builders at 3-5% of intels cpu business. May not sound like alot, but designing a product to fail will alienate much of this business. And when you start thinking about profitability... you don't want to alienate anything.

"All noobs will set it to agressive but when I did my pifast time went from 61.25 to 61.75 ..doh !"

No, a noob will set it to whatever is "recommended" which is almost always "Optimal".

[saaya]

Originally posted by zabomb4163
hmm

overclockers.com = 45,302 members
[H] forums = 19,194 members
Xtreme systems = ~7,000 members

total - 71,000

assume each member affects an average of 5 processor purchases per year 355K processors*100$ per chip. 36 million dollar influence from 3 forums. :)

unfortunately intel had 30 billion dollars income in 2003 alone (5.6billion profit)

3 forums comes out to 0.0012% of their revenue. even if you increase that influence by 100 fold your still 1/10th of a percent.

lol, sorry but that calculations is completely useless :D

i can only repeat: if we are so unimportant then why the big trouble to change the chipsets and cpus to limit us?

[slavik]

with this whole enthusianst/nub market discussion ...

let's take the change over the last 20 years (when first home PCs appeared) ...

then: people were scared to touch them (afraid of breaking them)

now: we have "people" who know about a certain product almost as much as the engineers who designed it (case and point: volt mods)

the "enthusiast" market is becoming larger and larger, but the mainstream market is still larger because "there's a new sucker born every minute"

[slavik]

maybe there is no conspiracy by intel, maybe they saw that they couldn't get a better yield ...

a "stock" voltage is picked (calculated) by the engineers, then they start testing CPUs at that voltage ... why do you think it's not surprising to see better OC with higher voltage? (the voltage issue is heat related)

there are reasons why things are done ... same as with locking multipliers ...

if I was an OEM, I could buy a bunch of 2400 AXPs for (argument's sake) 100USD and change the multiplier (raise the Vcore, and add a bit better cooling), then sell them as AXPs 3200+ which let's say cost 150USD ...

intel doesn't "lock" the "OC", they just make it harder to use, so that you can't "remark" a component in 5 minutes ... get my point?

Originally posted by saaya
lol, sorry but that calculations is completely useless :D

i can only repeat: if we are so unimportant then why the big trouble to change the chipsets and cpus to limit us?

[Logic-Pro]

i vote to ban Kanavit.
what the hell is he doing at xtremesystems.org ?? :rolleyes:
doesn't seem to help the community at all. It's the opposite!

[enzoR]

i concur but you cant just do it like that.....

[Mini]

Hmm... Thats just lame... Are they trying to lose money on purpose??? Or what is wrong with them...

This is just a wild guess but:

Am i wrong in saying that the first say 6 months the only people that bought the ALL new CPU's, boards so on are OC'ers...

Most people go to wall mart or whatever and buy a computer... And most people dont OC or buy the newest of the new... They buy what is "best" compared to price...

Think its just lame... Cant wait till AMD get their version of HT cuz i cant stand it the way AMD works today....

[bias_hjorth]

Originally posted by Mini

Think its just lame... Cant wait till AMD get their version of HT cuz i cant stand it the way AMD works today....

What is it that you cant stand? cause to me it sounds like you havent tried one and just beeing a major fanboy... I stand corrected if wrong ofcause

[Hightower]

So what have we learned here?

1.There are people who know what they're doing and people who dont, ie people who can achieve stability while pushing the limits of their hardware, people who dont, and others with plain common sense.

2.Some people are more willing to try new things and reconigze others opinins, and some are not.

3. Companies dont always make everyone happy.

4.System stability is is usually dependent on the thing between the keyboard and chair, by either knowledge or leaving well enough alone.

I have to agree that Intel isnt making the best choices, but someone is bound to find a way around it.

[saaya]

slavik, the only intel cpu you could remark today would be the prescott 2.4ghz with 533fsb. you could connect some pins to make it default with 800fsb and change the code on it, maybe change some more pins to give it a higher vcore.

but afaik, even then it will report as a prescott 2.4ghz @3600mhz...

its already impossible to rebrand intel P4 cpus, and limiting the cpu overclock has nothing to do with people reselling remarked intel cpus. that hasnt happened for like 5 years iirc. those were P3 700mhz cpus with an fsb of 100 and they were re-sold as 933 cpus with 133fsb.

[NoX]

Asking to ban somebody because you are in disagreement with his opinion it's just extremely lame. :down:

[enzoR]

he has no opinion. hes talking BS, but still he cant get baned for that....

[CCW]

Originally posted by zabomb4163
hmm

overclockers.com = 45,302 members
[H] forums = 19,194 members
Xtreme systems = ~7,000 members

total - 71,000

assume each member affects an average of 5 processor purchases per year 355K processors*100$ per chip. 36 million dollar influence from 3 forums. :)

unfortunately intel had 30 billion dollars income in 2003 alone (5.6billion profit)

3 forums comes out to 0.0012% of their revenue. even if you increase that influence by 100 fold your still 1/10th of a percent.

Now think about large computer manufacturers that buy thousands of these processors and sell them to home users and businesses in systems. At the end of the day we are a small market, but that doesnt mean we wont grow.

Oh and by the way, many people here are registered at all three of the forums mentioned above.

Craig

[enzoR]

but there are many more than three forums

[Çhrist0ph]

Originally posted by enzoR
but there are many more than three forums

really?

[HawainPanda]

wow...big ole intel fan kanavit is...lol

[pik-ard v1.1]

Originally posted by HawainPanda
wow...big ole intel fan kanavit is...lol
this the first time you realized this? :p:

[Karnivore]

Originally posted by enzoR
he has no opinion. hes talking BS, but still he cant get baned for that....


Sometimes I get annoyed at Kanavit, and a couple other colorfull members, however, ignorance, BS, attittude, etc aren't valid reasons to ban. Even though Kanavit seems to have a very limited knowledge of most topics he discusses, At least he posts in the proper areas of the fourm, I've yet to see him ask if this is BH5, post asking if he should upgrade his video card in Xtreme overclocking section. :stick:

[Ragnarok]

lol, well at least let us add him to the ignore list along with GF4 Ti4200?

[pik-ard v1.1]

Originally posted by Ragnarok
lol, well at least let us add him to the ignore list along with GF4 Ti4200?
its in the peoples profile, towards to bottom, noone needs to "let" you do that... :rolleyes:

[Ragnarok]

why dont u try before u speak...

[pik-ard v1.1]

because i have no reason to ignore him.

i see what ya mean now. you could also just not reply to his posts if he annoys you that bad...

[sandman]

Well, this topic went to hell. Congratulations.

[saaya]

well so after this comment it looks like intel will try to keep the lock for the retail boards. at least diferent manufacturers already found a way around the lock, i dont know how much time it took them, so maybe it didint take them long at all and they will find a way to completely unlock it soon.

still a big :shakes: at intel...

[slavik]

saaya, I see what you're saying, but my point is that maybe Intel is doing what they are doing because they have a need to ... I am sure that engineers didn't just decide to do this (I am sure as hell it wasn't marketing) ...

[lutjens]

They did it because they needed to?!?!?

Intel did it because they don't want you having 1066 MHz performance without paying Intel's premium for it. They don't want you getting something for free. They realized that the chipset yields were good enough and along with overclockable Prescotts (say a 3.0), the 266 MHz level is reachable without too much trouble. Intel is not stupid...they saw right away that once DDR2 is refined a bit and becomes more mainstream, people will push their systems up to the 1066 MHz level and gain that level of performance, taking away the need for them to upgrade again when Intel officially sanctions 1066 MHz.

In Intel's opinion, they want you to buy a LGA 775 chip now with a new motherboard. Then they want you to buy a 1066 MHz processor in the future, and a new motherboard to "officially" support 1066 MHz.

It's just a silly coincedence that the new 1066 MHz FSB processor you'll be purchasing at that time has the exactly the same multiplier as your old processor did...:rolleyes:

[saaya]

xactly

[neologan]

Originally posted by Kanavit
I come to this forum, because of hard ware news, knowledge on good steppings and new technology. Not to o/c.

Kanavit, why do you need knowledge on good steppings if you don't overclock? I'm sure I've heard stuff from you in the past just like this. You are soo trolling buddie.

:stick:

[gaddster]

jees :rolleyes: leave the guy alone.. If he wants to come here and read about stuff he doesn't actually do himself then how does it affect you?

I read about all sorts of stuff I don't actually participate in but so what..

[lutjens]

I feel Intel's move in this area is a deliberate and premeditated attack on us, the enthusiast community.

This move by Intel to institute a FSB limit won't affect the majority of P4 users. The only people is will affect is us, those people who like to push their systems to the limit. Dell users, HP users, Compaq users won't be affect in the slightest by this FSB lock. When you think about it, we'll be the only affected market segment.

Intel doesn't like what we are doing (overclocking chips like the 2.4C to 3.2+) and wishes to put a stop to it, and force us to buy the fastest chips if we want the best performance. I suppose Intel feels that this segment of the market is so small, if we all go AMD, the net result will be a small loss at worst.

I feel with the word of mouth and the dissent about Intel that we are capable of sowing in the general computer buying public (our family, friends and co-workers), we can show them that the losses will be much more than they bargained for...and every person we can steer toward AMD, the stronger AMD becomes at the expense of Intel.

[Çhrist0ph]

other than the fact that they dont want us to have free performance, we are also a liability. These locks are sure to decrease the number of intel board/cpu rma's

[bias_hjorth]

ot:

lol I love your SIG.. :D


on t:

That could be a large factor too.. I think RMA is costing firms a ton on money

[Kanavit]

even with a locked fsb , intel stock frequency will still be superior to AMD's highest overclocked cpu.

[bias_hjorth]

Originally posted by Kanavit
even with a locked fsb , intel stock frequency will still be superior to AMD's highest overclocked cpu.


and what are you baseing this noobish rubish on?

[Kanavit]

LGA 775 P4 3.6E vs A64 FX-53 o/ced to 3.5ghz.

[bias_hjorth]

Originally posted by Kanavit
LGA 775 P4 3.6E vs A64 FX-53 o/ced to 3.5ghz.


LOOOOOL so you are telling me p4e 3.6 could beat a fx53 at 3.5 :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

no personal attacks ;)
saaya

[Kanavit]

no, i'm just saying that Intel locking fsb because it has hit a ceiling. some overclockers just o/c not for faster benchmark, but just to see how high they can get the cpu, and post a screenie.

[neologan]

na he's saying that the actual frequencies will still be higher, which ofcourse, means it's better :stick:

Anyway, isn't trolling a ban able offense? it's so blatent in that last post, he needs to be banned at least for a few days imo

[saaya]

calm down.

i dont understand kanavit either, but if he wants to post at xs thats his decision.

dont flame him, and NO, we dont ban people for beeing fanboys.
if you dont like him or his attitude, just use the ignore button...

[Blaster]

Originally posted by Kanavit
even with a locked fsb , intel stock frequency will still be superior to AMD's highest overclocked cpu.

So ? whats ur point ? :confused:

a motorcycle engine can reach 18.000 rpm but its unsuitable for a car

[Kanavit]

Thx Saaya, you've been very helpful. everyone, Please understand , i'm not here to o/c , but to discuss on subject of Intel locking.

I just wish people would stop bashing Intel without valid reason. Alot of accusations on Intel are unfounded. socket 478 is being phased out and replaced by LGA 775, PCI express. Intel is loosing alot of money to 5% overclockers, so they put a lock on new LGA 775.

That doesnt make Intel suck or evil. It's just that he needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few. Intel makes most of the profit from Manufacturers, OEMS, and resellers, Not the enthusiast. Thats why they go in the direction away from overclockers.

[Ailleur]

From the intel section:
http://219.113.251.125/c-board/file/SetFSB1.5a2_P5GD1.png
So, this thread is kinda pointless.
Above the 248fsb limit and above the 10% oc limit, on a retail chip.

[zabomb4163]

Kanavit is a troll or seems to act like one....

[Lithan]

Ailleur, As I understand it, Intel deliberately causes stability problems (reboots)over 10%. It doesn't flat out lock achieving it. Also, I hear boards are already out that ignore the lock.

[LikwidKool]

Originally posted by Kanavit
even with a locked fsb , intel stock frequency will still be superior to AMD's highest overclocked cpu.

that is the funniest thing I have heard in a while. The highest clocked AMD would trounce the highest Intel stock cpu. Any bench you throw at it, AMD would win.

Understand too Kanavit I like Intel. I am writing this on my main rig which is a P4 3.2C/P4C800-E, but when it comes to benching and raw performance I use my 3200+/K8NSpro for that!

[saaya]

Originally posted by Ailleur
From the intel section:

So, this thread is kinda pointless.
Above the 248fsb limit and above the 10% oc limit, on a retail chip.

read the last pages of that thread : http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37378

Originally posted by Kanavit
I just wish people would stop bashing Intel without valid reason. without valid reason? lol

[MaZeR]

Originally posted by Kanavit
It's just that he needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

Quote of the Month

No more Star Trek for that man! Seriously Kanavit dude. You're like this guy who's got his arm round us as we are being :smileysex by Intel saying "There there, at least they are having a good time, that's all that's important"

[LilGator]

"Sometimes the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many" - James T. Kirk

[Quartz]

(First post :) )

It's a lot of fun reading this thread (or parts of it at least) but what about this article (http://www.anandtech.com/chipsets/showdoc.html?i=2092) @ anandtech?

I mean why don't we wait to get our hands on the stuff THEN judge it?

[OC Detective]

I think Kanavit is having a great time winding you guys up with his ever more outrageous statements! When you think about it, despite the statement having absolutely no relevance in the real world, the P4 3.6E does have a higher frequency than a FX at 3.5GHz so it is factually correct. Kanavit should have been a politician based on his succinct use of semantics to convey an entirely distorted picture!

[bh2k]

Originally posted by Kanavit
I come to learn, and also share info about computer hardware.


You might as well be the head of marketing for Intel. You seem to know how and why they do EVERYTHING. I'm really glad someone who doesn't even work for them knows that Intel has a bigger budget then AMD? I'm very interested on what ground you say all that crap about Intel being more stable then Intel? What? because you don't know how to take care of your computer and install crap from sites you don't trust? Sorry, but in my opinion there are 2 reasons for an unstable system. 1. People who dont know how to care for their computer or a DOA product. If it works, but has querks it can be fixed...I've done it, why can't anyone else?

[IvanAndreevich]

Kanavit
What 5% are you talking about? <1% is more like it. Besides, they are either dumb or on a personal vendetta against overclocking. Sheesh, if they are "loosing money to overclockers", they will LOSE MORE MONEY because overclockers won't stop being overclockers but will START using AMD. Now, using logic, explain it to me how this won't happen :banana:

[bh2k]

How do they lose money to overclockers when we stress the hell out of CPU, kill it, and have to buy a new one?

[OC Detective]

OK a bit left field here and fully prepared to be shot down!
Is there any possibility that Intel are concerned about the influence of programmes like say screen savers and call for help etc? It seems to me the people who call into these shows are just regulars guys, rather than serious overclockers, who are looking to learn more about their systems beyond the press the button and make it work for me mentality. Is Intel maybe pre-empting a rapid increase in the amount of users who are becoming more aware of the potential of the systems they possess (I am not sure how many systems, if any, built by the likes of Dell, HP etc can be FSB adjusted to be honest)?
BTW I am not an Intel apologist I am merely trying to rationalise the reasons behind such a move.

[Kalway]

It's called, Intel knows how to bring the suck.

[STEvil]

This is seriously some of the funniest trolling i've ever seen... lol :D

I say we keep kanavit around just for the sig material :D

[Lithan]

"even with a locked fsb , intel stock frequency will still be superior to AMD's highest overclocked cpu."

Yeah, I considered making that my sig. But I'm so wonderously lazy lately.

The funny thing is that there are two definitions available for the word "superior" here.

The first (and most obvious) definition would result in a reaction akin to... "Are you a Bleeping Moron? An overclocked FX will brutally RAPE a stock p4. We are talking SPABPDS (Slow Painful Anal Bleeding Prescott Death Syndrome)."

The other definition inspires a reaction akin to... "Duhr! Duhr! Duhr! Ya think? Duhr!" *flap your hand limp-wristedly against your chest while talking like cartman in the special olympics south park episode.*
http://images.southparkstudios.com/img/interface/eggs/left/down_left_cartretarded.gif

http://www.southparkstudios.com/down/download.html?file=/media/sounds/803/GODDAMNYOU.wav

[enzoR]

LOL

[Çhrist0ph]

Originally posted by bh2k
How do they lose money to overclockers when we stress the hell out of CPU, kill it, and have to buy a new one?

we are a liability because a lot of people kill stuff and rma it.

oh yeah, ive got my sig material:D
I have enough for a few pages of the most unlogical qoutes ive ever heard in my life ;)

[Kalway]

I swear he is a robot programmed by Intel to defend their image.

[Jupiler]

That's enough guys.
Please stay on topic, otherwise this thread will be locked.
Thanks.

[gaddster]

I think the original topic has been lost in a mist of nit picking & flaming.. Perhaps this would best be closed Mr Moderator ? :)

[Jupiler]

Nah, I'll let it open. It's saaya's thread anyway, so he can decide if he wants it open or not. He can close it himself, if he wants to. ;)

It's a good subject, where everybody's input is appreciated, as long as they stay on topic and stop the name calling and flaming.

[saaya]

well i wanted to show those who didnt believe the overclock lock was real that it IS real. mission accomplished, thread closed :D