Can non K haswell be OC'd up to their max Turbo frequency?

[2is]

Just wondering if non K Haswell's work the same way as SB/IB i5's and i7's where you can still overclock them by 4 bins, up to their max turbo frequency? A friend of mine is looking towards a new build and with the limited OC headroom Haswell provides, I'm think he might be better off with the non K, which has a more full featured instruction set than the K's. If I can OC it up to it's turbo frequency, the difference between it and a K series would only be another 3-400 MHz if I'm to keep temps in check using air cooling.

Thoughts?

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

I think they dropped the "bins" overclocking on the 4770 (I7).
There may be a BLCLK method, I'm not sure for the non-K, and it is rather limited anyway.

Further information

the standard non-K chips (ie Core i7-4770, Core i5-4670, et al) will have locked multipliers, no Turbo Boost clockspeed overclocking, and will not be allowed to use the additional 125 MHz and 167 MHz BLCK options,

Looks like NO overclocking on it.

 

[2is]

Bummer... Glad I asked before buying! Thanks for the info.

 

[zir_blazer]

As far that I am aware, you *SHOULD* be able to raise the Multiplier to whatever Turbo uses as max. What was removed from Haswell, is the 4 bins (4x) over the maximum Turbo when using it on a Z series Chipset, if I recall correctly. I recall having seen it done on a french review, but I didn't see anyone try it on other places. Should be worth waiting for confirmation.

 

[Racan]

All you can do with the turbo bins on the 4770 is to have all cores run at 3.9Ghz.

 

[2is]

All you can do with the turbo bins on the 4770 is to have all cores run at 3.9Ghz.

Ok, that's what I needed to know, and that would likely be enough to forego the K series.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Ok, that's what I needed to know, and that would likely be enough to forego the K series.

Intel has confirmed that the ability to adjust Turbo Boost multipliers in non-K parts has been removed in Haswell

According to a statement released by Intel on the matter, the move is quite deliberate: the non-K-series parts, the company explains, are targeted at business and mainstream consumer users who shouldn't be fiddling around with multipliers in the first place.

All above quotes are from here

 

[PPB]

ASUS, Gigabyte and Asrock AFAIK have an option (labelled by ASUS) as Multicore-Enhancement, which defaults your max turbo as your load clock, so it will make you go straight to 3.9 when doing intensive work, ignoring turbo values based con how many cores you have loaded.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

ASUS, Gigabyte and Asrock AFAIK have an option (labelled by ASUS) as Multicore-Enhancement, which defaults your max turbo as your load clock, so it will make you go straight to 3.9 when doing intensive work, ignoring turbo values based con how many cores you have loaded.

But is that option ONLY for K series chips ?
And/or the 3770 non-K and older, which allowed overclock messing with the turbo settings to an extent ?

 

[PPB]

It involves turbo and doesn't depend on the chip being K or non K.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

It involves turbo and doesn't depend on the chip being K or non K.

BUT the non-K has fully LOCKED overclocking abilities (possible exception of slight BLCLK adjustments, I'm not sure), so how can the motherboard adjust something, which Intel themselves (links provided earlier in this thread) has LOCKED at the factory ?

BUT I am no expert on the Haswells, so if there is a way, I could be wrong. But the articles seem to say that Intel has stopped it (overclocking non-K).

 

[PPB]

Those bins are a different story. That is an CPU feature, now removed on Haswell. Before you could change them manually.

Now you are stuck with turbo. This Turbocore-Enhancement feature targets it's behaviour and locks turbo to 3.9 in all cases, regardless of number of cores loaded. It's a motherboard feature, not a CPU one. Also no chance to modify it at all, just a ON/OFF feature.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Those bins are a different story. That is an CPU feature, now removed on Haswell. Before you could change them manually.

Now you are stuck with turbo. This Turbocore-Enhancement feature targets it's behaviour and locks turbo to 3.9 in all cases, regardless of number of cores loaded. It's a motherboard feature, not a CPU one. Also no chance to modify it at all, just a ON/OFF feature.

I'm with you now. Sorry.
(I thought it had to be done with the turbo-multipliers).

Thanks for the explanations.
So as I now understanding it for the 4770 (non-K).
The "single thread" performance is TRULY LOCKED, as the 4 bins can no longer be done.
But the "turbo" mode can be extended to run, for all 4 cores (via an ON/OFF flag mobo capability).

I think I get it now, Thanks.

It does get VERY confusing at times. Sorry again!



To OP:, if it was me, and I wanted to have the option, of even a slight overclock, I would go for the 4770K (assuming the missing features, such as TSX etc don't matter to you).

 

[beginner99]

Considering how poorly haswell on average overclocks it's obvious why intel removed the 4 bin feature. First no sane person would then buy a K version and secondly because they probably could not guarantee stability.

It's just very boring and frustrating. I have no incentive to upgrade. Nothing exciting. Broadwell be a no show too on desktop so it's either haswell-e or skylake...

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Don't forget about Haswell refresh. But on the other hand, it's probably best not to hold your breath, on its specifications, wildly exceeding current haswells.
My guess would be something like a 100MHz clock improvement, very slight IPC, and maybe one or two other features, like they put back in some of the features they removed for K, that should of been there all along.

 

[2is]

It would be nice if Haswell refresh went back to solder, like IBE will be... Well, nice for everyone who didn't already upgrade to Haswell anyway. Resale value would be [very low] for existing Haswell CPU's.



Just a reminder, no profanity in the tech forums. Thanks.

Moderator jvroig

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Sadly, I think Intel going back to solder (TIM) is unlikely to happen. But above some TDP level (something like >= 100 Watts) they probably would have little choice, but to use better TIM, otherwise even the normal temps would probably be too high (esp in hottest countries).

As time goes on, I'm increasingly thinking that de-lidding (for any determined, hard overclockers) might be the best way out of the soldered (TIM) situation, or another solution is to use the cheapest socket 2011(++), that is available at the time (e.g. Haswell-E eventually), and overclock that.
But de-lidding should only be undertaken if you are happy to risk losing it all.

At some point, we may get not only non-soldered TIM, but the cpu may be soldered down, and so if overclocking kills the cpu, the motherboard is toast as well. (If they even let soldered down cpus overclock).

In the future, AMDs unlock-ability, soldered (TIM) and cpu socketed motherboards, might mean future AMD chips get increasingly attractive.

 

[ShintaiDK]

In the future, AMDs unlock-ability, soldered (TIM) and cpu socketed motherboards, might mean future AMD chips get increasingly attractive.

In the future, AMDs unlock-ability...

I am sorry, what unlock ability? And Skylake is LGA as well. So lets not continue the FUD. And who says AMD will keep solder.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

I am sorry, what unlock ability? And Skylake is LGA as well. So lets not continue the FUD. And who says AMD will keep solder.

When I said "unlock-ability", I should have been clearer.
I did NOT mean any kind of core unlocking.

I was referring to unlocked overclocking capabilities, aka Intel 'K' type cpus.
Currently, AMD are fairly generous, with many of their cpus being freely unlocked, and usually with little or no price penalty as a result.

What I was saying is that at some point in the future, Intel may forcibly move all their cpus onto a soldered down format. Such a thing is pure conjecture, at this point in time.

There is NO guarantee AMD will keep solder.
In theory (i.e. hypothetical example, NOT real life) Intel could go back to Solder, and AMD could stop solder, reversing the current situation.

In practice, I'm hoping AMD continue with the solder (TIM), as that hopefully will help them compete against Intel.

 

[ShintaiDK]

When I said "unlock-ability", I should have been clearer.
I did NOT mean any kind of core unlocking.

I was referring to unlocked overclocking capabilities, aka Intel 'K' type cpus.
Currently, AMD are fairly generous, with many of their cpus being freely unlocked, and usually with little or no price penalty as a result.

What I was saying is that at some point in the future, Intel may forcibly move all their cpus onto a soldered down format. Such a thing is pure conjecture, at this point in time.

There is NO guarantee AMD will keep solder.
In theory (i.e. hypothetical example, NOT real life) Intel could go back to Solder, and AMD could stop solder, reversing the current situation.

In practice, I'm hoping AMD continue with the solder (TIM), as that hopefully will help them compete against Intel.

Who says AMD is not moving to soldered on as well? You just put up fear on one side to make the other look better.

Also the real issue is not being soldered. Its the gap.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Who says AMD is not moving to soldered on as well? You just put up fear on one side to make the other look better.

Also the real issue is not being soldered. Its the gap.

True, AMD may make similar or even worse changes to the TIM as well.

As I understand it, any one or more of the following 4 things would improve the TIM situation:

1. Soldered (TIM)
2. Gap reduced/removed
3. Much better (TIM) interface material, which some people say would work and is do-able
4. Easy removeable lid and/or sell a K version, without a lid

 

[ShintaiDK]

The TIM is actually pretty good.

 

[2is]

True, AMD may make similar or even worse changes to the TIM as well.

As I understand it, any one or more of the following 4 things would improve the TIM situation:

1. Soldered (TIM)
2. Gap reduced/removed
3. Much better (TIM) interface material, which some people say would work and is do-able
4. Easy removeable lid and/or sell a K version, without a lid

I don't think #4 is an option for a lot of people. The retention system is designed to work with the lid in place and heat sinks will not make proper contact with the die without modification. That's too many "supporting mods" that would need to happen to work properly. Extreme OCers would do it, but most OCers won't. I don't think it's an option direct from Intel either for the same reasons, it's not as simple as just removing the lid.

1-3 are more viable since that's easily accomplished across all their CPU lines, require no modification of the retention system or HSF designs, but I'm not so sure how well 3 would work short of using a liquid metal type TIM, and if you're going to do that, you might as well use solder anyway.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

I don't think #4 is an option for a lot of people. The retention system is designed to work with the lid in place and heat sinks will not make proper contact with the die without modification. That's too many "supporting mods" that would need to happen to work properly. Extreme OCers would do it, but most OCers won't.

I agree.

There is also the danger that Intel may close this loop hole and glue it on, or make it so that links break when the lid is removed or something, making de-lidding relatively impossible.

To keep other forum members happy, I should point out that AMD and/or Arm could also fix the lids in a similar way.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I agree.

There is also the danger that Intel may close this loop hole and glue it on, or make it so that links break when the lid is removed or something, making de-lidding relatively impossible.

To keep other forum members happy, I should point out that AMD and/or Arm could also fix the lids in a similar way.

You could also turn it around and say delidding is much easier without soldered TIM. I mean, any _true_ enthusiast would dellid it right? :awe: