Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > CPUs and Overclocking

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Home and Garden
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-26-2013, 12:51 AM   #26
blackened23
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,556
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by readymix View Post
change it after I buy it= consumer fraud. F intel
I think you meant to say, "F motherboard manufacturers"? The H87 / B85 were never meant to be used for unlocked processors, period, this was known from the outset. This is a case of unscrupulous motherboard manufacturers trying to get an edge in the market. There are some real issues with VRMs on H87/B85 boards not being able to handle to voltage required for overclocking. Have you guys seen MOSFET areas completely black and charred from over-voltage? It happens, i've seen it. And since H87/B85 boards are cheap 80-100$ boards, it's hard to imagine that these motherboards will have adequate VRMs up to the task of overclocking 4770k CPUs.

Again: Intel's white papers stated from the outset that only Z87 was intended for unlocked K processors. Motherboard manufacturers were looking for an edge on the market, and it is backfiring. (for the less than honest mobo mfgrs)

Last edited by blackened23; 07-26-2013 at 12:55 AM.
blackened23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 01:16 AM   #27
beginner99
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackened23 View Post
I think you meant to say, "F motherboard manufacturers"? The H87 / B85 were never meant to be used for unlocked processors, period, this was known from the outset. This is a case of unscrupulous motherboard manufacturers trying to get an edge in the market. There are some real issues with VRMs on H87/B85 boards not being able to handle to voltage required for overclocking. Have you guys seen MOSFET areas completely black and charred from over-voltage? It happens, i've seen it. And since H87/B85 boards are cheap 80-100$ boards, it's hard to imagine that these motherboards will have adequate VRMs up to the task of overclocking 4770k CPUs.

Again: Intel's white papers stated from the outset that only Z87 was intended for unlocked K processors. Motherboard manufacturers were looking for an edge on the market, and it is backfiring. (for the less than honest mobo mfgrs)
Those board don't have any vrm anymore they are in the chip with haswell.

If there is some kind of contract /legal document form intel stating that those chipsets are not for over clocking and should not allow multiplier adjustment, then it the mobo manufacturers fault else it's a dick move by intel.

But then who buys a k series cpu and does not buy a z-series mobo? Kind of stupid anyway.
beginner99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 01:16 AM   #28
tynopik
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,545
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intel17 View Post
I see most of the people in this thread think profit is evil. Lord help you if you ever try to start your own businesses.
Nice try.

Utterly wrong, but nice try nonetheless.

The concern has nothing to do with profit and everything to do with crippling a consumer's product AFTER they buy it.
tynopik is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 01:31 AM   #29
ShintaiDK
Lifer
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 11,364
Default

Blame the mobo makers for doing random untested hacks that they can charge extra for.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare
Competition is good at driving the pace of innovation, but it is an inefficient mechanism (R&D expenditures summed across a given industry) for generating the innovation.
ShintaiDK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 01:38 AM   #30
blackened23
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,556
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beginner99 View Post
Those board don't have any vrm anymore they are in the chip with haswell.

If there is some kind of contract /legal document form intel stating that those chipsets are not for over clocking and should not allow multiplier adjustment, then it the mobo manufacturers fault else it's a dick move by intel.

But then who buys a k series cpu and does not buy a z-series mobo? Kind of stupid anyway.
This isn't completely correct. Haswell does have an iVR but if you look at any Haswell motherboard you'll see that there is still a fairly large MOSFET area which handles 12V > 2.4V conversion with applicable power phases for overclockability. The MOSFET area on the lower end boards will be sparse while the Z87 boards are pretty extensive to allow for safe overclocking.
blackened23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 01:48 AM   #31
SOFTengCOMPelec
Golden Member
 
SOFTengCOMPelec's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 1,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BallaTheFeared View Post
The company protecting their assets against 3rd party vendors who are essentially hacking their products and running them outside of spec.

Intel didn't advertise these chipsets as overclocking boards, the mobo companies did.

I know the Intel boogeyman holds a lot of weight around here, but I think in this case those that bark are doing so up the wrong tree.
If you had an Intel rig, and de-lidded it, and overclocked it to 4.8GHz

Would it be ok if Intel retrospectively decided de-lidded are bad, and so sent a firmware update via windows, which retrospectively detected your de-lidding, and permanently/forcibly removed enough overclocking, until it was down to 4 GHz.

Would you mind at all ?

Would you say, Intel needs to make a giant profit, great, I LOVE the update ?

Or would you be the tiniest bit upset, especially when you found your favourite game, slowed down by 10 fps, and now stutters, when before it was perfectly smooth ?
SOFTengCOMPelec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 01:51 AM   #32
SOFTengCOMPelec
Golden Member
 
SOFTengCOMPelec's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 1,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
Blame the mobo makers for doing random untested hacks that they can charge extra for.
If Intel produce and activate RETROSPECTIVE updates which permanently change affected peoples computer equipment, without PERMISSION.

THEN, I blame INTEL (the mobo makers can be blamed as well, I agree).
SOFTengCOMPelec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 01:53 AM   #33
ShintaiDK
Lifer
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 11,364
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SOFTengCOMPelec View Post
If Intel produce and activate RETROSPECTIVE updates which permanently change affected peoples computer equipment, without PERMISSION.

THEN, I blame INTEL (the mobo makers can be blamed as well, I agree).
Its you installing the windows update or BIOS. You fully agree to this yourself and gave it full permission. And its not Intel distributing it either, its MS or the mobo maker.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare
Competition is good at driving the pace of innovation, but it is an inefficient mechanism (R&D expenditures summed across a given industry) for generating the innovation.
ShintaiDK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 01:58 AM   #34
SOFTengCOMPelec
Golden Member
 
SOFTengCOMPelec's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 1,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
Its you installing the windows update or BIOS. You fully agree to this yourself and gave it full permission. And its not Intel distributing it either, its MS or the mobo maker.
No.
Or at least NOT in the UK, and maybe NOT in Europe (not sure about Europe).

The reason is that the small (tiny) print, is NOT allowed to change the rights that you reasonably expect to have.
So if a court deems it right, for a person to expect the update to NOT significantly worsen the performance of the computer, then it can be declared Illegal.

N.B. I am NOT a Judge/Policeman/Lawyer/Law expert, so the comment above is what I think the law says, but I could well be wrong.
SOFTengCOMPelec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 01:59 AM   #35
ShintaiDK
Lifer
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 11,364
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SOFTengCOMPelec View Post
No.
Or at least NOT in the UK, and maybe NOT in Europe (not sure about Europe).

The reason is that the small (tiny) print, is NOT allowed to change the rights that you reasonably expect to have.
So if a court deems it right, for a person to expect the update to NOT significantly worsen the performance of the computer, then it can be declared Illegal.

N.B. I am NOT a judge/Policeman/Lawyer/Law expert, so the comment above is what I think the law says, but I could well be wrong.
Its perfectly legal in the EU. And overclocking on a H/B board is considered faulty if you even want to go that way. So its simply a faulty product being corrected.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare
Competition is good at driving the pace of innovation, but it is an inefficient mechanism (R&D expenditures summed across a given industry) for generating the innovation.
ShintaiDK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 02:01 AM   #36
readymix
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 225
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackened23 View Post
I think you meant to say, "F motherboard manufacturers"? The H87 / B85 were never meant to be used for unlocked processors, period, this was known from the outset. This is a case of unscrupulous motherboard manufacturers trying to get an edge in the market. There are some real issues with VRMs on H87/B85 boards not being able to handle to voltage required for overclocking. Have you guys seen MOSFET areas completely black and charred from over-voltage? It happens, i've seen it. And since H87/B85 boards are cheap 80-100$ boards, it's hard to imagine that these motherboards will have adequate VRMs up to the task of overclocking 4770k)
is intel worried about damage to my asus board or is the 4770k buring up too.
readymix is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 02:05 AM   #37
bunnyfubbles
Lifer
 
bunnyfubbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 11,996
Default

Yeah, I don't understand how intel is at fault here, if anything its with the motherboard manufacturers to try and trick users into buying a chipset that was never intended to overclock

Even going back to Sandy in 2011, if you really wanted to overclock your K series chip, you needed to get the P or Z series chipset (of which Z series has since completely replaced the P series), you'd have to be a fool to "know" what you were doing and expect anything but the Z series to work for overclocking. Anyone legitimately duped should be upset with the motherboard manufacturer, not Intel.

While I think it sucks true budget overclocking for Intel products is pretty much extinct, its what we have to deal with.
__________________
i7 3930K @ 4.7GHz + XSPC Raystorm/EX280/D5 | ASUS Sabertooth X79 | EVGA GeForce GTX780 | 4x4GB Samsung Green DDR3 @ 1866 CAS9 1.5v | 2x256GB Samsung 830 RAID-0 | 3 x 1.5TB Hitachi 7K3000 RAID-0 | 2 x 3TB Seagate 7200.14 RAID-0 | Windows 8.1 Pro Update 1 x64 | Creative X-Fi Titanium HD | Seasonic Platinum-1000 | Silverstone FT02B-WRI | BenQ XL2420T | Dell U2711 | Filco Majestouch-2 Tenkeyless Cherry MX Red | Razer Abyssus + Goliathus Speed | Beyerdynamic MMX300 / Astro A40 2013
bunnyfubbles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 02:05 AM   #38
SOFTengCOMPelec
Golden Member
 
SOFTengCOMPelec's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 1,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
Its perfectly legal in the EU. And overclocking on a H/B board is considered faulty if you even want to go that way. So its simply a faulty product being corrected.
Ok, maybe it IS legal.

But I doubt some/many customers will see it that way.

If any of my Intel computers, were messed about with by Intel (via an internet update), and were significantly worsened as a result afterwards, I would be VERY annoyed with Intel.
SOFTengCOMPelec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 02:10 AM   #39
ShintaiDK
Lifer
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 11,364
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SOFTengCOMPelec View Post
Ok, maybe it IS legal.

But I doubt some/many customers will see it that way.

If any of my Intel computers, were messed about with by Intel (via an internet update), and were significantly worsened as a result afterwards, I would be VERY annoyed with Intel.
Your ISP and cell provider also lowers your service speed/abilities to keep quality up.

Did you consider AMDs (forced) update to Phenom CPUs with a TLB bug with heavy performance panalties for the same? Or did you consider that a bug fix?

The B/H platform is not valdated for overclocking, its not tested and the platform its on may not be capable of substaining it. Meaning the consumer might get a bad experience. And this is essentially why Intel went into the mobo business in the first place. But I am unaware if you are old enough or able to remember that far back.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare
Competition is good at driving the pace of innovation, but it is an inefficient mechanism (R&D expenditures summed across a given industry) for generating the innovation.
ShintaiDK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 02:15 AM   #40
BallaTheFeared
Diamond Member
 
BallaTheFeared's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,128
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SOFTengCOMPelec View Post
If you had an Intel rig, and de-lidded it, and overclocked it to 4.8GHz

Would it be ok if Intel retrospectively decided de-lidded are bad, and so sent a firmware update via windows, which retrospectively detected your de-lidding, and permanently/forcibly removed enough overclocking, until it was down to 4 GHz.

Would you mind at all ?

Would you say, Intel needs to make a giant profit, great, I LOVE the update ?

Or would you be the tiniest bit upset, especially when you found your favourite game, slowed down by 10 fps, and now stutters, when before it was perfectly smooth ?

Uh, wut?

If I delidded my CPU I would void it's warranty, I haven't done that as I don't need to do that.

I'm not sure how you concocted this scenario, but I've heard of personal trips to Mars that sounded more credible.

The issue here is Intel didn't do anything, it was the board makers who deceived low end customers into believing they could save a few bucks on a board, all they had to do was add to cart.

Fact is it's Intel's game, if the wanted overclocking on these cheaper chipsets they would have allowed it, they didn't, and they don't. End of story, Intel isn't the bad guy, the mobo makers are.

As I said eariler, given your scenario I would contact the mobo maker who told sold me the delidded cpu and request a free ugprade to an official delidded cpu.
BallaTheFeared is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 02:16 AM   #41
oceanside
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 53
Default

How big is the niche of overclockers throwing expensive K skus on B and H series chipset MBs anyway?
oceanside is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 02:19 AM   #42
SPBHM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,578
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackened23
The H87 / B85 were never meant to be used for unlocked processors, period, this was known from the outset.
100% incorrect, H/B chipsets have support for any 1150 CPU, it's just the same custom PCIE 4x link (DMI) anyway.

Quote:
This is a case of unscrupulous motherboard manufacturers trying to get an edge in the market. There are some real issues with VRMs on H87/B85 boards not being able to handle to voltage required for overclocking
VRMs are not built inside the PCH, 100% irrelevant, there is nothing blocking the manufactures to use the same VRMs from higher end boards with the B85.

also, low end MB overclocking is no secret, I have a 5 years old G31 board running with OC (cheapest chipset from the p35 era)

there is always room for OC, using a CPU with no HT, lower clock, or with the IGP disabled will already give you some extra room compared to the highest power CPU supported (4770K for most low end boards), and you can push higher if you don't load 100%, whatever.. "overclocking motherboard" is more for the marketing department or higher OCs... and Haswell higher end CPU have a 84W TDP, you have people doing OC with less than ideal boards with 125W CPUs from AMD...

you overclock, you loose your warranty, this should be good enough for Intel or their partners building MBs with weak VRMs...

but in reality if you overclock with cheaper hardware, Intel's profit margin is a little lower (because you don't buy the more expensive Z+K combination)

Quote:
Originally Posted by oceanside View Post
How big is the niche of overclockers throwing expensive K skus on B and H series chipset MBs anyway?
big enough for MB manufacturers to advertise and Intel to do something about it.
SPBHM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 02:23 AM   #43
SOFTengCOMPelec
Golden Member
 
SOFTengCOMPelec's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 1,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BallaTheFeared View Post
Uh, wut?

If I delidded my CPU I would void it's warranty, I haven't done that as I don't need to do that.

I'm not sure how you concocted this scenario, but I've heard of personal trips to Mars that sounded more credible.

The issue here is Intel didn't do anything, it was the board makers who deceived low end customers into believing they could save a few bucks on a board, all they had to do was add to cart.

Fact is it's Intel's game, if the wanted overclocking on these cheaper chipsets they would have allowed it, they didn't, and they don't. End of story, Intel isn't the bad guy, the mobo makers are.

As I said eariler, given your scenario I would contact the mobo maker who told sold me the delidded cpu and request a free ugprade to an official delidded cpu.
If someone knocked on my door now, and said they are from Intel.
They have noticed that I have got one of the affected motherboards (I don't really have an affected one), and that I have significantly overclocked it with my 4770K (again, made up).

They held in their hand a cd, with an update, which they insist MUST be applied to all my affected computer equipment, and they brushed passed me.

Would I:
  1. Open the door and show them my computer equipment, show them how to switch it on, and leave them to it.
  2. Would words come out of my mouth, to the effect that they need to go back to Intel, and stay there for a very long time, and DON'T come back
  3. Phone the Police if they forced entry, and scream and shout at them to leave my computer equipment alone
  4. Would I give them a huge $1000 tip, say how wonderful Intel is, and let them mess up my computers

Was it option (1) or option (4) you would go for ?


------------

EDIT: But I agree, the motherboard makers, need to take most or even all the blame, as they mainly caused the problem, themselves.

Last edited by SOFTengCOMPelec; 07-26-2013 at 02:29 AM. Reason: Mobo
SOFTengCOMPelec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 02:26 AM   #44
ShintaiDK
Lifer
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 11,364
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPBHM View Post
but in reality if you overclock with cheaper hardware, Intel's profit margin is a little lower (because you don't buy the more expensive Z+K combination).
Just a note, there is only 4$ difference between H87 and Z87. So even if a million overclockers bought it (Close to all OCers there is?). Its still pennies.

But the potentially bad PR that could follow from burned mobos, crashes and such is priceless.

The boards in question are not cheaper due to lower PCH cost. they are cheaper due to cheaper overall components on boards not designed to OC at all.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare
Competition is good at driving the pace of innovation, but it is an inefficient mechanism (R&D expenditures summed across a given industry) for generating the innovation.
ShintaiDK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 02:27 AM   #45
Khato
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPBHM View Post
but in reality if you overclock with cheaper hardware, Intel's profit margin is a little lower (because you don't buy the more expensive Z+K combination)
And there is the entire reason for Intel fixing this bug rather than allowing motherboard makers to exploit it. As said before, there's really no reason for Intel to continue chipset segregation other than to split up the cost of overclocking across two chips. If they had a single chipset then the K SKUs would be that much more expensive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPBHM View Post
big enough for MB manufacturers to advertise and Intel to do something about it.
Not necessarily. I'd expect it's more about future sales rather than current - if Intel allowed this bug to persist motherboard manufacturers would stop using Z87 for everything except their top-end overclocking models and pocket the profits. aka, these H87 overclocking motherboards would be the exact same as their Z87 precursors... maybe a dollar or two cheaper, with the motherboard manufacturer reaping the remainder of the price difference between the H87 and Z87 chipsets.
Khato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 02:29 AM   #46
BallaTheFeared
Diamond Member
 
BallaTheFeared's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,128
Default

Here is a more realistic scenario based on what is actually happening.

You buy a board for a shady dealer, says it comes with a Windows 8 key. You buy the board, you get home, you enter the key, all is well. Three days later Windows tells you your cdkey isn't legit and you need a new one.

Is it Microsoft's fault, or the shady motherboard dealer who sold you the fake CD key?
BallaTheFeared is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 02:29 AM   #47
ShintaiDK
Lifer
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 11,364
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SOFTengCOMPelec View Post
If someone knocked on my door now, and said they are from Intel.
They have noticed that I have got one of the affected motherboards (I don't really have an affected one), and that I have significantly overclocked it with my 4770K (again, made up).

They held in their hand a cd, with an update, which they insist MUST be applied to all my affected computer equipment, and they brushed passed me.

Would I:
  1. Open the door and show them my computer equipment, show them how to switch it on, and leave them to it.
  2. Would words come out of my mouth, to the effect that they need to go back to Intel, and stay there for a very long time, and DON'T come back
  3. Phone the Police if they forced entry, and scream and shout at them to leave my computer equipment alone
  4. Would I give them a huge $1000 tip, say how wonderful Intel is, and let them mess up my computers
Was it option (1) or option (4) you would go for ?
Please stop making up things in your endless Intel hate. If you dont like this, just dont use Windows update or install BIOS updates. Its 100% your own decision.

And blame the mobo makers who are actually responsible. If was those who fooled you, not Intel.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare
Competition is good at driving the pace of innovation, but it is an inefficient mechanism (R&D expenditures summed across a given industry) for generating the innovation.
ShintaiDK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 02:31 AM   #48
SOFTengCOMPelec
Golden Member
 
SOFTengCOMPelec's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 1,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
Please stop making up things in your endless Intel hate. If you dont like this, just dont use Windows update or install BIOS updates. Its 100% your own decision.

And blame the mobo makers who are actually responsible.
It is up to each individual or business/organisation, to decide what companies they do, or do not like, or don't mind either way.

Sorry, I forgot that it is against the law to even slightly dislike Intel.
(If you detect a note of sarcasm, you are right).
SOFTengCOMPelec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 02:32 AM   #49
SPBHM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,578
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
Just a note, there is only 4$ difference between H87 and Z87. So even if a million overclockers bought it (Close to all OCers there is?). Its still pennies.

But the potentially bad PR that could follow from burned mobos, crashes and such is priceless.

The boards in question are not cheaper due to lower PCH cost. they are cheaper due to cheaper overall components on boards not designed to OC at all.
what about H81 and B85?

$4 seems to be enough for Intel to care! (how much money they save per unit going for the low quality thermal interface for the IB(non E)/Haswell IHS?)
H87 causes crashes and burnt motherboards?! I thought this sort of thing were not caused by lower priced PCHs

a MB manufacturer can design a low cost overclocking friendly motherboard with a cheaper PCH, they did that in the past with lga 775 and 1156.

the only problem to that is Intel blocking OC with the less expensive PCHs.

Last edited by SPBHM; 07-26-2013 at 02:37 AM.
SPBHM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 02:37 AM   #50
ShintaiDK
Lifer
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 11,364
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPBHM View Post
what about H81 and B85?

$4 seems to be enough for Intel to care!
H87 causes crashes and burnt motherboards?! I thought this sort of thing were not caused by lower priced PCHs

a MB manufacturer can design a low cost overclocking friendly motherboard with a cheaper PCH, they did that in the past with lga 775 and 1156.

the only problem to that is Intel blocking OC with the less expensive PCHs.
They are not much cheaper either. The big motherboard price differnce comes from components.

I didnt say the PCH was the cause of it. But rather the rest of the components. A 70$ board will not contain the same components or design as a 130$ board. But if that board goes up in smoke, bad PR could happen. And not only to the mobo maker.

Mobo makers simply take current non designed boards for OC to be OC boards. And mobo makers seems to lack any kind of good ethics. Just look at the "multicore boost" issue.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare
Competition is good at driving the pace of innovation, but it is an inefficient mechanism (R&D expenditures summed across a given industry) for generating the innovation.

Last edited by ShintaiDK; 07-26-2013 at 02:42 AM.
ShintaiDK is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
intel, overclocking

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.