Intel plans to deliberately limit Sandy Bridge overclocking

[saaya]

ya sure ok companies arent concerned in the least about making money

thats not what i said... the people who make these decisions at intel dont know the retail market and dont know about overclocking and how powerful of a marketing tool it is... hence, they didnt care about extra logic for overclocking. now its up to the retail guys at intel to fix this by releasing unlocked cpus and trying to implement a divider for dmi to split off bclock from the other clocks again.

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.

you think they already HAVE a divider in place? that makes no sense... if they would, then the ES cpus would have them enabled to debug it... they clearly arent capable to altering bclock without dmi because there isnt any divider in the current 1155 cpus. and i doubt there ever will be...

Well it hasn't to be the PCI-E bus but more like the DMI bus, since on currenct platforms its locked at a fixed frequency and uneffected by increasing the reference frequency. But now for the value/mainstream platform its directly tied to the reference clock.

And if the signals form the DMI bus get "unclear" you lose the comunication to the PCH.

You don't have this problem with the enthusiast plattform since there you can chage the multis and keep them in certain frequency spectrum.

Anyway as some posters already said, it to eraly to say anthing absolute. We'll know more next IDF in september.

i wouldnt be surprised if the problem is caused by timings not matching up and maybe too small buffers...
dmi is largely based on pciE and pciE is fine with higher clocks, so whatever intel added protocol wise to make it dmi, must be responsible for this... either that or they altered the interface and reduced buffers and cut down the design to safe transistors resulting in worse clock margins...

The CPU distributors have the instrument to check if the CPUs are burnt by OC.

thats what they told you
all those "tools" do is meassure the internal resistance between the different ground and power planes, you cant conclude from that HOW the cpu burned, actually you cant even tell whether it burned our not as it might as well be a pcb or pad issue causing those readings... :P

i am the only one with real Perf data in hands ...

houston to francois, houston to francois, we lost track of you, are you still in the solar system?

same crap as when the i7's first released. Apparently back then, bclks were locked and we couldn't use more that 1.65v vDIMM. Lol on both counts.

no, bclocks were limited by the same clock buffer but luckily some people in intel found a way to work around the buffer. and luckily they managed to fix the vdimm issue as well.
in this case the change they would have to do to fix overclocking would be pretty big afaik, so im sceptical if they will do it... BCLOCK overclocking that is... i think they will just release multi unlocked cpus... but for what price? :/

i think theres a lot of misunderstanding about this...
there wont be bclock overclocking, most likely, but whoever is claiming that there wont be ANY overclocking is talking bs...

what many people ARE upset or worried about though is not the claims of no overclocking, BUT:

1. there will be unlocked cpus, but not all of them will be unlocked... which means there will be cpus with locked multipliers and no bclock adjustments either, which will be FULLY LOCKED and wont be able to overclock beyond 5-10%.

2. the unlocked cpus will most likely come at a price premium, so yes, we will still be able to overclock, but this time around we will have to PAY for it... there wont be any free overclocking, and there wont be any massive percentage and price performance overclocks using entry level cpus and pushing them into the realms of the super highend performance wise...

and that sucks...
i sure hope intel or a mainboard maker figures out a way to improve or enable proper bclock overclocking...

I have heard this just before Nehalen was launched. I believe when I see it. Probably this is just another crapload created.

it wasnt a load of cr4p then and it isnt now, its getting blown out of proportion, YES! but its not made up or nonsense...
last time around intel solved it, luckily, this time its a bit tougher to solve but lets hope they will get if fixed within the next couple of months...

Albert Einstein said "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler" , so, I am going to say it as simple as I can, and you guys can quote me to reply to those silly stuffs:
"Overclocking will be different on SB, but it will still be a lot of fun too, and it will be as good/high as usual, and Anybody who claim the opposite just have an agenda"

Sorry for not sharing my results ... hehehe ... but well, you guys are slow on your SuperPi results and so on .... hahahahahaha

Drwho?

o rly?
so we will see something like this on 1155?
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=255305

and yes, i do have an agenda, i love the overclocking spirit and that thread right there is full of it. getting a cheap piece of equippment and tweaking the cr4p out of it, THATS the true overclocking spirit!
not spending shtloads of money on custom gear and then simply pushing the buttons other people set in place for you...

"Intel plans to deliberately limit Sandy Bridge overclocking" ... The tittle is totally BS, but still ...

on that i actually agree with you
i dont think intel did it on purpose, its more like they unplugged the cables, put them in a different way and all major channels worked for them, but they didnt notice that they unplugged their customers from the playboy channel

oh please... come one you guys are both in +35years old and you still act like kids?

what??
just cause their having a joke on the side?
i think you misunderstood their posts, i dont think either of their replies was meant in a bad way at all, they are both joking...
and francois, respect, im surprised you replied the way you did

Sandybridge -DT= 4core /8 threads, LGA 1155 3.0ghz clock speed 3.8 turbo , TDP 65-95W all i can really find, Bet you guys didnt know after ivry bridge their bringing out haswell and rockwell which are 16 nm

haswell is 16nm now?

ok ppl when ever you see a thread by me, and you dont like the title....blame the article. i never change the titles, i believe it is more journalistic to leave them as is (no matter how flaming them are). so stop attacking me ok?

i dont think anybody meant to attack you