Intel plans to deliberately limit Sandy Bridge overclocking

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

07-23-2010, 02:43 AM
Oliver

Exactly, You get what you pay for.

futhermore is X68 the real platform for extreme pushing.

Sure OC on P67 as said etc. with right BINs CPUs.

Very nice move imo from Intel.

LGA1156 is like atm. imo in the middle. price / features. Its cool to see that it assumingly will be cheaper to build a LGA1155 rig and when its time to beg up you push your X68.
07-23-2010, 03:45 AM
slaveondope

Quote:

Originally Posted by saaya

this is bs... intel didnt do this deliberatly, and they didnt do it to make more money either...

:rofl::ROTF: ya sure ok:yepp: companies arent concerned in the least about making money:up:
07-23-2010, 03:48 AM
memmem

We need someone..

Who?
07-23-2010, 03:51 AM
richierich

Quote:

Originally Posted by memmem

We need someone..

Who?

It took this long for your first post? :welcome:
07-23-2010, 03:54 AM
G.Foyle

http://images.bit-tech.net/news_imag...intel-2011.png
I think it says here that it will allow for even greater bus overclocks than with BCLK, but only on the high end/extreme platform.
07-23-2010, 03:56 AM
richierich

The top right of that slide says "SNB-E Non-XE = TDP+0 bins (no overclocking)"
07-23-2010, 03:56 AM
Aberration

Sounds to me they made it so that the lower end cheaper systems can be cheaper over all.
07-23-2010, 04:01 AM
Tomasis

after sandybridge released, i hope more activity on amd forum section :p:

intel is too greedy, they got money recently from selling .. still not enough :) need more!
07-23-2010, 04:02 AM
herderien

this has been a rumor before i7 launch too, "because of the turbo boost OC won't be possible"... i don't see why intel would do that, it makes no sense.
and please don't say RMA, rma for OC is certainly marginal.
07-23-2010, 04:09 AM
informal

Quote:

Originally Posted by herderien

this has been a rumor before i7 launch too, "because of the turbo boost OC won't be possible"... i don't see why intel would do that, it makes no sense.
and please don't say RMA, rma for OC is certainly marginal.

But there is a difference now due to the way DMI is designed.This wasn't the case in the i7s.
07-23-2010, 04:12 AM
mAJORD

Quote:

Originally Posted by richierich

The top right of that slide says "SNB-E Non-XE = TDP+0 bins (no overclocking)"

Refers to the multiplier though, nothing to do with supposed bclk restriction
07-23-2010, 04:15 AM
herderien

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

But there is a difference now due to the way DMI is designed.This wasn't the case in the i7s.

possible, but you cannot be sure just by looking at specs on a powerpoint.
or they will develop the "K" concept or whatever they need to make OC affordable.

average overclockers are just too much of free publicity for them to let it go like that

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam_oslo

It is a natural move if Intel try yo to limit the OC of mainstream to prevent a direct competition with hight end. I guess that's the lesson Intel has learned from i7, when we all bought a sub $300 920 and OCed it to beat the $1000 975.

you mean it took 20 years for them to realize that ? this has been existing since 486 series ^^
07-23-2010, 04:17 AM
Sn0wm@n

intel will surely milk those stupid fully unlocked cheapo sandy bridge ... FAIL!!!!
07-23-2010, 04:17 AM
geo

and this is why monopolies are bad.. i just wish AMD got its act together :(
07-23-2010, 04:26 AM
Johnny87au

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3NZ0

Wait, what? :confused:

lol my bad i found out yesterday only just realised what i said haha
07-23-2010, 04:26 AM
Ket

I don't see this happening. All that will result is intel shooting themselves in the foot and many jumping ship to AMD. Pure panic rumors, salt truck is to your right.
07-23-2010, 04:27 AM
Chrono Detector

WTF Intel... I guess they didn't like how people got a lower clocked CPU and overclocked it to higher speeds for free. But seriously, by doing this that may lose customers. The whole 1155 platform sounds disappointing anyway, so I'm going to skip it and focus on AMD Bulldozer and Intel 2011, or whatever they are going to call it.
07-23-2010, 04:29 AM
informal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ket

I don't see this happening. All that will result is intel shooting themselves in the foot and many jumping ship to AMD. Pure panic rumors, salt truck is to your right.

How about reading the thread and looking at the intel official slides from last IDF? It's all there.
07-23-2010, 04:32 AM
Johnny87au

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

But there is a difference now due to the way DMI is designed.This wasn't the case in the i7s.

Yeh but we had Blck in i7 which is similar to the front side bus "fsb" now we have DMI which is similar to blck, so who knows? :shrug:
07-23-2010, 04:45 AM
informal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny87au

Yeh but we had Blck in i7 which is similar to the front side bus "fsb" now we have DMI which is similar to blck, so who knows? :shrug:

Look at the presentation slides from IDF.It's limitation of the design.Without the unlocked multi DMI clock doesn't scale past 3-5% from default 100Mhz.It's just the way the thing is designed.
07-23-2010, 04:47 AM
Johnny87au

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

Look at the presentation slides from IDF.It's limitation of the design.Without the unlocked multi DMI clock doesn't scale past 3-5% from default 100Mhz.It's just the way the thing is designed.

What im saying is though, They arent released yet and from what ive read its only the 1155 platform so no real biggy, no loss..
07-23-2010, 04:50 AM
Hornet331

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny87au

Yeh but we had Blck in i7 which is similar to the front side bus "fsb" now we have DMI which is similar to blck, so who knows? :shrug:

You still have a reference clock aka base clock and from this clock all other clock domains are sprung off. The difference is, that for mainstream SB you have locked DMI and PCIE multiplicators. So if you increase reference clock you also increase both of this clocks.
07-23-2010, 04:50 AM
josh1980

I won't say I'm surprised. Intel receives alot of CPUs from people that think they are "leet overclockers". Then they burn up their chip because they don't know what they're doing and then RMA it claiming a faulty CPU. It's difficult to identify what CPUs were overclocked/overvolted and which ones weren't unless there is physical damage.

Frankly, I'd prefer the CPU having some feature that records the highest clock/voltage the CPU has ever been exposed to and Intel looking at that before replacing a CPU. If you overclocked the :banana::banana::banana::banana: out of it, your warranty will not be honored. Instead they're going to limit the speed for everyone. No fun!
07-23-2010, 04:50 AM
memmem

Quote:

Originally Posted by richierich

It took this long for your first post? :welcome:

Thank you.

For a long time I follow the forum very closely because i really like computers

But i don´t have the knowledge to post frequently (or ever :p:) because I am only a civil engineer.
07-23-2010, 04:51 AM
Johnny87au

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornet331

You still have a reference clock aka base clock and from this clock all other clock domains are sprung off. The difference is, that for mainstream SB you have locked DMI and PCIE multiplicators. So if you increase reference clock you also increase both of this clocks.

Yeh i read that increasing it by 5mhz only causes the PCIE and system to freeze, sounds crap eh:clap:

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page