Intel plans to deliberately limit Sandy Bridge overclocking

[memmem]

Where was SB developed?

And Haswell?

[Chumbucket843]

Nop ... The PCU is actually much faster than an ARM ...

and it's faster than that borked analog power controller in itanium?

iirc you say youre an expert on ISA's. what advantage does x86 have? i certainly dont see it. in fact it looks like back in the day RISC was the best choice for high end machines and now it looks like the best choice for low power devices.

[terrace215]

Where was SB developed?

And Haswell?

Core 2 : Haifa
Nehalem/Westmere : Oregon
Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge : Haifa
Haswell/Rockwell: Oregon

[memmem]

Thanks.

Is there any kind of cooperation between Haifa and Oregon teams?

Just curiosity.

Core 2 : Haifa
Nehalem/Westmere : Oregon
Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge : Haifa
Haswell/Rockwell: Oregon

[Mumak]

I'm not sure if the DP/MP server versions (Gainestown/Beckton (Nehalem-EP/EX) and Jaketown (SNB-EP/EX)) were developed at the same place as the rest.. One thing is the CPU Core (Gilo, Gesher), the rest (uncore, IIO, SA) might be a different story since the concept is now pretty modular..

[Iconyu]

I don't think that this sort of info can be disclosed to public yet.

Actually I think he won't answer questions you can just google for.

LGA2011 is SB-E, has 40 PCI-E 3.0 lanes on chip (enough for two GPUs and a raid card). I'm really looking foward to these chips, but they are a while away. AT least I'll have time to save up.

[Mumak]

Then it's already leaked... Look for the Waimea Bay platform..

Actually I think he won't answer questions you can just google for.

LGA2011 is SB-E, has 40 PCI-E 3.0 lanes on chip (enough for two GPUs and a raid card). I'm really looking foward to these chips, but they are a while away. AT least I'll have time to save up.

[Iconyu]

http://vr-zone.com/articles/a-look-i...ay/8877-1.html

Using places as codenames is a great way to screw up google, alas I'd read this article a while ago so I didn't have much hassle finding it again. I'm sure someone posted it back in April, but I'm too lazy to look.

Also as a point of note, no one has bothered to inform the guys at bit tech, or anywhere else really about Dr Who's claims that SB overclocks just fine. I guess he only thinks of us as important enough to bother with, I'm touched.

[mike]

http://vr-zone.com/articles/a-look-i...ay/8877-1.html

Using places as codenames is a great way to screw up google, alas I'd read this article a while ago so I didn't have much hassle finding it again. I'm sure someone posted it back in April, but I'm too lazy to look.

Also as a point of note, no one has bothered to inform the guys at bit tech, or anywhere else really about Dr Who's claims that SB overclocks just fine. I guess he only thinks of us as important enough to bother with, I'm touched.

Funny thread title, feel like we see that same threat/d pop up every few years or so

[FlanK3r]

www.pctuning.cz - infos about SB in one article

[saaya]

very nice collection of infos there

[grishenko45]

i cant believe this!! like someone said earlier - why are intel stopping something they've dominated for the past 10 years!!!???

i'd like to think this is not true but seems to be judging by all the articles i've read.

we've still got the 2011 LGA chips to see yet - these might be just like i7,i5 etc...as far as OC'ing goes.

surely they've know this since P4s came out - who would buy the most expensive cpus when they can get a £200 920 to faster than a 965!!!

also i don't think anyone has brought this up yet - the market for overclocking is tiny compared with normal retail and prebuilt computers if you know what i mean - you find out how many i7 920s were sold in the last 2 years or whatever individually through placed like newegg etc.. then find out how many i7 920s intel sold to companies like DELL or ACER etc....you'll find that there was more sold to the big computer companies than to people who want to overclock them..

[zalbard]

If they limit overclocking they will only limit low-end models if at all. Honestly, I don't really believe that.
I bet there will be a way around even if so.

[saaya]

i cant believe this!! like someone said earlier - why are intel stopping something they've dominated for the past 10 years!!!???

10 years? not really... are you even aware that originally all cpus came with unlocked multipliers and it was intel who started to lock multipliers to begin with?

[grishenko45]

10 years? not really... are you even aware that originally all cpus came with unlocked multipliers and it was intel who started to lock multipliers to begin with?

hi - no i was not aware of that - sorry. and you say intel were to 1st to start locking multipliers!! look at where they are now!!

if all this is true about SB - i quess the winners are the motherboard manufacturers that find a way to unlock the multis 1st

[570091D]

and you say intel were to 1st to start locking multipliers!! look at where they are now!!

charging $1000 for the pleasure of an unlocked multi...

[[XC] Oj101]

hi - no i was not aware of that - sorry. and you say intel were to 1st to start locking multipliers!! look at where they are now!!

if all this is true about SB - i quess the winners are the motherboard manufacturers that find a way to unlock the multis 1st

I do believe the Pentium 133MHz was the first locked chip

[-Boris-]

i cant believe this!! like someone said earlier - why are intel stopping something they've dominated for the past 10 years!!!???

More like 4 years.

[Hornet331]

10 years? not really... are you even aware that originally all cpus came with unlocked multipliers and it was intel who started to lock multipliers to begin with?

You may also want to mention why they, amd and intel, introduced the lock. Remarking of the cpus just got so popular and the fake markings where so sophisticated that noone could tell which cpu it was from just the looks.

With that action amd and intel basically killed the remarking business over night.

I do believe the Pentium 133MHz was the first locked chip

First locked chips where the P2s. For AMD it was the orignal athlon on the slot A.

[saaya]

hi - no i was not aware of that - sorry. and you say intel were to 1st to start locking multipliers!! look at where they are now!!

if all this is true about SB - i quess the winners are the motherboard manufacturers that find a way to unlock the multis 1st

well we will see... i think intel will watch closely how well sb sells and if it doesnt do well they will release new models with more unlocked multipliers or lower the price of cpus with unlocked multipliers...

You may also want to mention why they, amd and intel, introduced the lock. Remarking of the cpus just got so popular and the fake markings where so sophisticated that noone could tell which cpu it was from just the looks.

as if there was ever a huge market for remarked cpus... but yes, some people started to create fake highend cpus based on cheap entry level chips. while intel worked on their techniques until it was truly impossible to unlock their cpus, amd only made sure that it was possible to spot remarked cpus easily. they only truly locked their cpus in the late athlonXP days, and shortly after launched the athlon64 line which came with all lower multipliers than stock unlocked and a highly overclockable reference clock, AND offered fully unlocked cpus for 999$

With that action amd and intel basically killed the remarking business over night.

errr no? there were still remarked p2 and even p3 cpus, and amd cpus continued to be unlockable from the p3 competitor slot a athlon to socket a athlon, to athlonXP palomino, athlonXP tbredA and AthlonXP tbredB... and the market for unlocked cpus didnt dissapear, there were 754 ES cpus being sold as 3700+ cpus on ebay for a long time, some 939 ES cpus as well, and did you ever notice that while there were no more remarked cpus being sold, at the same time ES cpus started to show up in forums, shops and on ebay?
but yes, lets keep to intels official story, by locking the cpus they killed the remarking business over night
they didnt want to prevent people from overclocking cheap chips instead of buying 4x as expensive chips that were barely faster... they only did this to fight the evil remarking mafia that was threatening the entire industry and world peace! ^^

[HKPolice]

This is a win win situation for Intel: by integrating the clockgen they lower platform costs AND limit overclocking. As the leaks say, 'regular' locked CPUs will probably allow slightly higher multipliers whereas the fully unlocked "K" series CPUs will be fully unlocked. This also nets Intel more profit by selling the K series for a premium.

The enthusiast market only makes up for 3-5% of all PC sales so Intel doesn't give a rat's ass about pissing off overclockers.

[grishenko45]

The enthusiast market only makes up for 3-5% of all PC sales so Intel doesn't give a rat's ass about pissing off overclockers.

we may only be 3-5% of the market - but to the enthusiast motherboard companies we must be worth more than 3-5% - as someone else said - why would you buy 1 motherboard over another if they are all the same and only let you OC by 3%??!!

[[XC] Oj101]

First locked chips where the P2s.

Pentium MMX overdrive
Intel Pentium MMX overdrive 180 - PODPMT60X180

Intel Pentium MMX overdrive 180 - PODPMT60X180
180 MHz
320-pin staggered ceramic PGA

Overdrive MMX processor for Pentium 75, 90, 100 and 150 CPUs

Pentium MMX and non-MMX overdrive processors look somewhat similar to boxed Pentium processors. Like the boxed processors, the overdrives have processor markings on the heatsink. Unlike the boxed processor, the overdrive CPUs have speed marked in the top right corner. The overdrives also include integrated voltage regulator, which allows the microprocessor to work in socket 5 motherboards. And finally, the overdrive processor have their clock multiplier locked. For PODPMT60X180 the clock multiplier is locked at 3x, so depending on bus speed (50 or 60 MHz) the processor will run on 150 or 180 MHz.

Source

And I can say with 100% certainty that the P133 WAS locked (I've overclocked a few dozen Pentiums).

[El Mano]

Don't buy what you don't like.
Vote with your wallet. If SB does not overclock then don't buy it.

[madcho]

Agree buy bulldozers

Intel is selling too much sh*i*t E5300. This is very slow, and not very efficient for a cpu, and this is what intel the most ...