No overclocking for mainstream Nehalem?

[Shintai]

http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/...arranty_1.html



Do you expect them to say this and then months later lock their future products? Seriously?

Anyone who believed this FUD might want to reconsider now..

Anyone that even believed FUD in the start should have reconsidered already there

[Donnie27]

If by some stupid idea they decide that looking the chip is a good Idea, then AMD would be again the number 1 in my book.

You mean locking? Higher multipliers are locked, lower ones are not. Sometimes lower ones being unlocked is just as important because you can find the system's WALL first!

Nehalem's system MIGHT not lend itself to being overclocked as many found out when the for A64's showed up. New ways overclocking will have to be tested and worked out. Not the EVIL Intel fighting against and ripping off enthusiasts LOL!

[ZOMGVTEK]

I seriously dont see me EVER buying a processor knowing i cant overclock it.

I buy the best processor i can afford, and then overclock it as much as i can.

Its not about having a fast processor, its about having the fastest of the processor i have... (At least on air)

[Donnie27]

http://www.dvhardware.net/article1826.html

New Overclocking software.. from Intel
Posted on Thursday, August 28 2003 @ 11:56:45 CEST by Thomas De Maesschalck

Over at the ABXZone Forums they found a link to a page on Intel his website.. about Intel his overclocking software for their Intel Desktop Boards, like the D865PERL and the D875PBZ. Pretty remarkably, because Intel in the past did not really like overclocking..

Latests versions, yepp Intel doesn't want this alright.

http://softwarecommunity.intel.com/a...s/eng/1497.htm

For the record, newspeed.exe goes back to 1999

[RaZz!]

I seriously dont see me EVER buying a processor knowing i cant overclock it.

I buy the best processor i can afford, and then overclock it as much as i can.

Its not about having a fast processor, its about having the fastest of the processor i have... (At least on air)

then you'll have a problem if the cheapest high-end part is still too expensive to be affordable. and that's my concern... :/

i don't want to pay an additional 200€ just for the sake of being able to oc it. that's just sad.

[Donnie27]

then you'll have a problem if the cheapest high-end part is still too expensive to be affordable. and that's my concern... :/

i don't want to pay an additional 200€ just for the sake of being able to oc it. that's just sad.

Prospective! At a time when one Dual Core Processor that wouldn't overclock worth a damned sold for $400, people were flamed for saying that same thing. Hell, I had folks at [H] flame me for buying the $208 3500+ instead of the $389 3800+(at time of purchase). I remember laughing at folks calling 80MHz to 133MHz an overclock LOL!

If Nehalem is the beast 3 people I do trust, one from here, told me it is, who will worry about overclocking. So if a 2.6GHz Nehalem for $369 (est) is faster than their $1000 current Intel processor, that kind of defeats and takes some of the steam out of overclocking. Yet, I've been told more than once that Nehalem will overclock itself if the situation arises. Not only mobile Penryns but just as Video Cards do as well where certain parts run faster.

Example; My 8400 $208 + $77 mobo at stock 3GHz is faster than my E6600 $336 + $148 mobo overclocked to 3.2GHz. Everything is equal except processor and mobo. In fact the RAM and FSB were higher on the overclocked rig If you guys think I'm bashing AMD, then I'm bashing the E6600 as well.

[Kingcarcas]

I seriously dont see me EVER buying a processor knowing i cant overclock it.

I buy the best processor i can afford, and then overclock it as much as i can.

Its not about having a fast processor, its about having the fastest of the processor i have... (At least on air)

+1, the reason why i stopped subscribing to car magazines and stopped caring about tuned cars in general is because i will probably never own any of those to fix up, nor will i probably even drive one. PCs are much cheaper and in this hobby the poor student can have as much fun as the Engineer who makes 6 figures or whatever...........

[Donnie27]

+1, the reason why i stopped subscribing to car magazines and stopped caring about tuned cars in general is because i will probably never own any of those to fix up, nor will i probably even drive one. PCs are much cheaper and in this hobby the poor student can have as much fun as the Engineer who makes 6 figures or whatever...........

QFT!

[Movieman]

Slightly OT but in comment to what Donnie mentioned above.
I think what your going to see is a 3ghz Nehalem that is faster( more powerfull) than a 3.9ghz Yorkie,maybe even a 4ghz Yorkie.
There, I've said it and my neck is stuck out, BUT thats based on what I've seen.
Now we know a Yorkie that will do 3.9 is essentially left to the QX9650 and QX9770's..$900-1500 cpu's
Lets see what a 3ghz Nehalem sells for..

[Seraphiel]

I wonder if Intel would accept this from nVIDIA, for giving full SLI license to Intel, besides the licenses for future CPU / chipsets:

- Drop CF support from your chipsets, and make SLI the one and only standard.

As of now, CF support is something that supports AMD as well as Intel, but I have the feeling, that Intel would rather wish to support nVIDIA, exclusively, as nVIDIA doesn't directly have CPU alternatives or in that race / competition, yet.

CF + SLI on the same Intel motherboard, is a problem for Intel, I think. Sure they may sell more motherboards, but they'll also serve the competitions's offerings in terms of GPUs sold, and that may well hurt Intel more.

Jusr speculating, of course.

[Movieman]

I wonder if Intel would accept this from nVIDIA, for giving full SLI license to Intel, besides the licenses for future CPU / chipsets:

- Drop CF support from your chipsets, and make SLI the one and only standard.

As of now, CF support is something that supports AMD as well as Intel, but I have the feeling, that Intel would rather wish to support nVIDIA, exclusively, as nVIDIA doesn't directly have CPU alternatives or in that race / competition, yet.

CF + SLI on the same Intel motherboard, is a problem for Intel, I think. Sure they may sell more motherboards, but they'll also serve the competitions's offerings in terms of GPUs sold, and that may well hurt Intel more.

Jusr speculating, of course.

Interesting..
We all think from our own perspectives.
I've bought and owned both Intel and AMD, both ATI and nVidia.
I buy what I perceive to be the best at the particular time as I assume most do.
At this moment in time I think an Intel cpu with an nVidia video card is the best combo. Now I don't game so SLI or Crossfire isn't in my decision and I realise it is for others here but I would like to have the option of trying SLI on one of my rigs and I can't with this current pissing match between the two companies. I actually have a board with 2-X16 v2.0 PCI-e slots and I can't run two nVidia cards and that makes me mad at both Intel and nVidia.

[Seraphiel]

Interesting..
We all think from our own perspectives.
I've bought and owned both Intel and AMD, both ATI and nVidia.
I buy what I perceive to be the best at the particular time as I assume most do.
At this moment in time I think an Intel cpu with an nVidia video card is the best combo. Now I don't game so SLI or Crossfire isn't in my decision and I realise it is for others here but I would like to have the option of trying SLI on one of my rigs and I can't with this current pissing match between the two companies. I actually have a board with 2-X16 v2.0 PCI-e slots and I can't run two nVidia cards and that makes me mad at both Intel and nVidia.

Indeed we do, and that is how it should be

I still, just kinda get the feeling the SLI license is more about AMD/ATI's CF license and wide support for Intel, than the problem about nVIDIA's own chipset sales.

Also, does AMD/ATI support CF for nVIDIA's SLI chipsets? I don't believe they do, and so they are also being restrictive as well.

nVIDIA being the strong GPU maker, and Intel being the strong CPU maker, a partnership would serve both well, to diminish their common enemy / competition: AMD / ATI. I also believe, that in the interest of money, that Intel and nVIDIA will strike some deal, that'll serve them both well. Even better, they could evolve features to new heights.

[perkam]

I think it is irresponsible for Intel to not allow overclocking.

There are entire industries hoping for overclocked Nehalem and its many applications:

[Donnie27]

Slightly OT but in comment to what Donnie mentioned above.
I think what your going to see is a 3ghz Nehalem that is faster( more powerfull) than a 3.9ghz Yorkie,maybe even a 4ghz Yorkie.
There, I've said it and my neck is stuck out, BUT thats based on what I've seen.
Now we know a Yorkie that will do 3.9 is essentially left to the QX9650 and QX9770's..$900-1500 cpu's
Lets see what a 3ghz Nehalem sells for..

ABSOLUTELY!

[Blauhung]

I think it is irresponsible for Intel to not allow overclocking.

There are entire industries hoping for overclocked Nehalem and its many applications:

hehe

but again, intel is suporting overclocking as that is why Tylersburg was designed specificly such that it would work in single socket desktop configurations.

Lynnfield and Havendale have huge benifits to the 98% of the population that doesnt OC. The overall platform should use less power and costs less due to the complete drop of the chipset aside from an I/O hub. They don't overclock because there was no reason to spend the time and money to design the capability in and now with the current design there's no levers to pull with out any bus or interconect that carries the reference clock. Adding the ability in would have increased the time to market and the benifits to simplicity, cost, and power usage would have been sacrificed in the name of allowing OC'ing to satisfy 2% of the consumer market, and decrease their competitive advantage in the other 98%.

It was a very easy decision to make I believe.

[Drwho?]

No need to worry!
There are ways, thinking the other way around is underestimating the OC community.
Francois.

[Donnie27]

Indeed we do, and that is how it should be

I still, just kinda get the feeling the SLI license is more about AMD/ATI's CF license and wide support for Intel, than the problem about nVIDIA's own chipset sales.

Also, does AMD/ATI support CF for nVIDIA's SLI chipsets? I don't believe they do, and so they are also being restrictive as well.

nVIDIA being the strong GPU maker, and Intel being the strong CPU maker, a partnership would serve both well, to diminish their common enemy / competition: AMD / ATI. I also believe, that in the interest of money, that Intel and nVIDIA will strike some deal, that'll serve them both well. Even better, they could evolve features to new heights.

CF support is built into the card and can run on any to PCI-E slots that supports one card from the start. nVidia's is built on the Board and is sold. Nehalem's layout doesn't readily support SLI but easily does CF. I might be wrong but that how it was explained to me.

All I'm saying is maybe, the NEW X58 and etc.. doesn't lend itself to being overclocked and will need a few revisions for overclocking to be figured out. NOT Intel saying take this you filthy overclockers

[Seraphiel]

CF support is built into the card and can run on any to PCI-E slots that supports one card from the start. nVidia's is built on the Board and is sold. Nehalem's layout doesn't readily support SLI but easily does CF. I might be wrong but that how it was explained to me.

All I'm saying is maybe, the NEW X58 and etc.. doesn't lend itself to being overclocked and will need a few revisions for overclocking to be figured out. NOT Intel saying take this you filthy overclockers

I may be going out on very uncertain ground here, Donnie, but here goes:

CF isn't more "built into the card" than SLI is. Both will work with any two PCIE slot setup, and is only limited to what drivers allow.

SLI and CF are both using the exact same technology, and are both limited to the same as we know it.

It is all about the drivers.

SLI doesn't work with Intel chipset, and CF doesn't work with SLI chipset - unless special or hacked drivers are used.

Please, anybody prove me wrong here, and do so not mentioning some obscure (skulltrail) or server releated chipsets.

[adamsleath]

this is amusing.

sales ploy

all the ocers going for tylersburg, cos no cheapy oc platform for N

maybe amd will make a huge comeback with ocable am3 imc chips.

[oohms]

According to the anandtech review, they use a 133mhz external reference clock. Changing this should result in an overclock

[Donnie27]

I may be going out on very uncertain ground here, Donnie, but here goes:

CF isn't more "built into the card" than SLI is. Both will work with any two PCIE slot setup, and is only limited to what drivers allow.

SLI and CF are both using the exact same technology, and are both limited to the same as we know it.

It is all about the drivers.

SLI doesn't work with Intel chipset, and CF doesn't work with SLI chipset - unless special or hacked drivers are used.

Please, anybody prove me wrong here, and do so not mentioning some obscure (skulltrail) or server releated chipsets.

I believe the 'chip' for SLI is only there so the driver recognizes a *valid product for SLI. Its a damn rip-off, its just unfortunate that it is not illegal.

Its no different that what Creative is(was) doing with X-Fi and Vista.

*That's what I was told too. That by a driver writer who owns nothing but nVidia cards.

All companies protect their unlicensed IP and I don't blame them for that. It is the same reason Auzentech pulled their X-Fi Prelude drivers when they found out Daniel K was using them to unlock DDL on the Creative X-Fi.

The problem I have with this is that nVidia agreed to a cross license and then pulled out when they got what they wanted. nVidia charges for their IP while wanting Intel's free. The only real fair policy should be they BOTH either pay each other or they get each other's tech free. Only someone who doesn't understand the market and or has some misplaced deeply rooted hate for Intel thinks Intel should pay them while nVidia gets stuff free, that's silly IMHO! If AMD and Intel can do this, so can nVidia=P

[makaka]

Sound like a pure crap , but i think this will be limited to only intel's motherboard . Since other motherboard producer has to make some things special .

[Zaskar]

From an Intel rep on this board around a month ago he said the reason had something to do with how the lower end chips were made, that the CPU's will run at their rated speed even if an aftermarket board/chipset tries to force it higher due to the CPU checking the speed and anything trying to run faster will be disregarded and ran at the stock speed.

Supposedly this was considered a side effect of the architecture and not the intention.

He also said the lowest end Bloomfield CPU will be around $400 so no one should worry about not being able to afford the ones you can overclock.

[Donnie27]

I agree in protecting IP. But SLI/CF doesnt seem much like IP to me. They are intentionally preventing something the hardware is already capable of doing, just to make a few extra $. Like it was said before, they could just as easily make an SLI version of the card with this chip (wasnt ATi doing this with the first CF cards?). Then they wouldnt even have to mess with Intel on this, and then Intel probably wouldnt be doing what they are now. They just want to get the $ from Intel, and then Intel has to raise prices on those chipsets. So it makes Intel look like the bad person and not them.

Its like a car company selling you a V8, but disabling 2 in the ECU. And then asking you to pay extra for an unlocked ECU to use them.

That is what happens when ethics fail in capitalism.

QFT!

[NH|Delph1]

Also, does AMD/ATI support CF for nVIDIA's SLI chipsets? I don't believe they do, and so they are also being restrictive as well.

NVIDIA locked AMD out, not the other way around. You can run CF just fine on NVIDIA chipset, I.e. if NVIDIA would let them.

Remember xDNA that never materialized?

//Andreas