How Intel Will Lock Overclocking on LGA1160 (Mainstream Nehalem) - Fud

[Face]

No easy work around

As we told you some time ago, Intel has put in what can only be called an overclocking lock in the upcoming LGA1160 processors which are currently going under the codenames of Lynnfield and Havendale.

Until now we didn't know how this had been implemented, but we've learned some more about it and it looks like there is no easy work around. As these processors have the memory controller and a few more bits integrated into the CPU itself, Intel suddenly has a lot more control than it has had with past designs that utilized a separate chipset which contains the memory controller.

As Intel seems to want to push the much more expensive Bloomfield platform to overclockers,
the company implemented a lock that prevents these new processors from being overclocked by adding two PLL clock generators, one inside the CPU itself and one in the PCH.

This might not sound like it's a big problem in itself, but what Intel has done is that these two will clock generators will reference eachother and this means that just changing the bus speed won't have any effect if you're trying to overclock the CPU as it will dissregard the information from the PCH if it's not a correct value.

There might still be options for overclocking these CPU's, but our understanding is that this isn't easily done and Intel doesn't want it to be and as such Intel is unlikely to give out this information to third party motherboard manufacturers.

The sum of all this is that Intel might loose out a few enthusiast users that don't have deep enough pockets to get a Bloomfield system to AMD, which might not be a bad thing for AMD in the end.

Source:
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...7255&Itemid=35

Old thread:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=185374

Does it really makes sense? and would they seriously do that? I really hope it ain't so.

[LuckyNV]

I really do hope this is all just a big load of BS, that or Bloomfield better be one kickass platform that OCs to hell and back.

The sum of all this is that Intel might loose out a few enthusiast users that don't have deep enough pockets to get a Bloomfield system to AMD, which might not be a bad thing for AMD in the end.

Assuming AMD has anything worthwhile by then.

[Brother Esau]

The Old Bait & Tackle maneuver with C2D..........

[Calmatory]

I really do hope this is all just a big load of BS, that or Bloomfield better be one kickass platform that OCs to hell and back.



Assuming AMD has anything worthwhile by then.

Depends if oveclocked AMD is faster than the mainstream nehalem.

If AMD is slower by stock, but faster when overclocked, then I'd go with AMD anyday if the prices aren't too high.

I have to call fake.
For intel to do this, they'd loose market they weren't even trying to make buy the more expensive stuff.

Enthusiasts build pcs for non-enthusiasts, if I had to buy the extreme edition to overclock type idea, I'd be going amd all the way, every system i'd build, intel would no longer be an option.

Remember when Intel was against overclockin? What actually brought C2D to it's prime? 1: good OC capability 2: good performance over K8.

What if you couldn't OC C2D's, but could K8? C2D would fail here in XS.

Intel seems to have no threat from AMD right now, but what about if AMD becomes competitive @ same clockspeeds and AMD's clock like C2D does right now? Then Intel would want people to OC.

RIght now people just buy the cheapest parts and OC them to near the top parts. :p

[Zytek_Fan]

I'm calling BS because Intel isn't going to ditch the enthusiasts once they finally got their grasp with enthusiasts.

[Pinacolada]

I'm calling BS because Intel isn't going to ditch the enthusiasts once they finally got their grasp with enthusiasts.

The won't ditch you they will MILK you. IMO it makes perfect sense - what for buy overpriced Bloomfield when you can buy cheaper and yet overclockable Lynnfield ? But if they will lock overclocking you have no choice - pay us or stay with stock Mhz,till now overclocking was free but it seems Intel wants to enforce some kind of 'overclocking tax'.

If they do - I'm going AMD.

[nn_step]

Umm not if anyone notices this but that simply means we can't overclock via FSB... that doesn't mean we can't overclock

[lowfat]

Bloomfield is a Skulltrail replacement correct?

[happychappy]

I'm calling BS because Intel isn't going to ditch the enthusiasts once they finally got their grasp with enthusiasts.

But they have a different platform for enthusiasts on Nehalem, the last thing i want is for this to be true but i wouldn't be too surprised if it happened

Bloomfield is a Skulltrail replacement correct?

It's average-Joe's version of Nehalem iirc

[bowman]

Bloomfield is the desktop quad for LGA1366. The LGA1160 Lynnfield and Havendale are 'average joe's Nehalem'.

[happychappy]

Bloomfield is the desktop quad for LGA1366. The LGA1160 Lynnfield and Havendale are 'average joe's Nehalem'.

Ahh okay easy to make mistakes with this

[dinos22]

looks like i'll be moving onto a new hobby

looks at golf maybe
got a course right next door.....wonder how much a set of clubs is and can they be tweaked a little

[shiznit93]

looks like i'll be moving onto a new hobby

looks at golf maybe
got a course right next door.....wonder how much a set of clubs is and can they be tweaked a little

Around the price of the entry level Bloomfield cpu probably.

[K404]

If these dont overclock, any performance gains to be had from the architecture will be neutralised by the overclocking we can do on C2D.

Heres hoping its either wrong, or poorly implemented. Why bother going to such effort to annoy 2% of the market?

[Xope_Poquar]

Why would they do this? I thought the people that overclock are such a small percent of the market that it's not worth doing anything about? What's the $ motive behind this? Do they think we'll go for the more expensive models instead of overclocking the cheap ones?

[sobol]

Well I don't know how's you guys. But I work as System's administrator.
Because current Intel architecture is superior to AMD's, I've got quad core
under my hood at home's computer.

Now because I'm the one who decide what kind of Office desktop's we're
buying it's all Intel C2D. There's about 500 of those.

When I was on AMD side I was buying AMD's for the Company.

Now, if they will lock their CPUs, i'm back at AMD's door step.

I'm sure there is much more guys like me...

Why would they do this? I thought the people that overclock are such a small percent of the market that it's not worth doing anything about? What's the $ motive behind this? Do they think we'll go for the more expensive models instead of overclocking the cheap ones?

[ubuntu83]

Damn Nation no donation no salvation.

[Face]

Hey Blauhung, is there any chance you could throw us a word on the subject? confirm? negate?

Much appreciated

[Xel'Naga]

This news comes from Fudzilla.....nuff said
Second, it would be a very stupid decision
Third, pinmods ffs. There is no way they can lock that, except if ALL procs have the same FSB, which I doubt.

[Blauhung]

First off this is not the position of the company, only my personal feelings, but....

there isn't really any bus on the Lynnfield or Havendale chipsets, only the interface to the southbridge. Everything is on the package and that is all locked to where it's set at. The reason for the in package PLL is most likely because the clock generation and splitting can now all be done on die which makes for far more control over the process and less part compatibilities to worry about. The second PLL probably just sets speeds for the SB and all the other IC's on the board that need clock generation. This is not a change that is there to lock out overclocking, that is a side effect of the new platform structure.

Second, Intel is not ditching enthusiasts, they have devoted a platform specifically for them.

[Face]

First off this is not the position of the company, only my personal feelings, but....

there isn't really any bus on the Lynnfield or Havendale chipsets, only the interface to the southbridge. Everything is on the package and that is all locked to where it's set at. The reason for the in package PLL is most likely because the clock generation and splitting can now all be done on die which makes for far more control over the process and less part compatibilities to worry about. The second PLL probably just sets speeds for the SB and all the other IC's on the board that need clock generation. This is not a change that is there to lock out overclocking, that is a side effect of the new platform structure.

Second, Intel is not ditching enthusiasts, they have devoted a platform specifically for them.

Yup, Intel isn't ignoring us. They are devoting entirely new platforms to this comunity. Because of the requirements that this community wants, these new platforms may cost a bit more. They are ignoring the people who get the cheap chips and make them work like the better ones do. They are not locking them out to prevent you from overclocking them. They are moving everything on die to lower power requirements and cost of production of the home and business desktop/mobile platforms with the goal of greatly improving performance per watt and dollar. This has the side effect of removing the levers that this community uses to raise the clock speed.

I repeat, this is not in place to screw this community. That just happens to be a side effect of all the improvements that 98% of the users will greatly appreciate.

Just calm down.

Thanks.

So if I gather correctly, the information is "true" in the sense that OC'ing will not be possible, not because Intel is playing malicious, but as a no choice side effect of the new architecture? (But would still be impossible?). AKA clockspeed is set in stone. Or did I get it wrong?

Anyway I just hope the improvements from the new architecture will compensate for all that in any case.. Looks promising either way .

[DMH]

Yeah right,lock OC in they're mainstream CPU's and we'll see AMD rise again
After all why are C2D/C2Q and C2X so popular?Because of they're easy ability to achieve big clock's with simple coolers and now they do this?I don't think so,they aren't dumbas(r)ses

[Seraphiel]

Yeah right,lock OC in they're mainstream CPU's and we'll see AMD rise again

My thinking as well, if this goes down as I (mis)understand it, as of now based upon a FUD site, and a member's information that may be very correct (I call FUD upon the first source, but not the latter).

I would welcome anything that makes AMD CPU an excellent alternative, but I still think this is too much in the dark, and those that really know what this is all about, can't say anything really significant (Blauhung is still in that catogory until I am convinced otherwise).

Too little information, or I am too dumb to understand what is given. I'll wait and see, and both will probably be correct

[Asgard_thor]

they will make us all have dell motherboards :o

[largon]

Well, screw Intel if they do that. I'm so NOT buying overpriced Bloomfield NOR a Lynnfield platform that doens't overclock.
Any takers for the $$$ that I wrote "FOR UPGRADE ONLY"?

I think I'm seeing GREEN.