• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Did intel deliberately gimp overclocking on SB?

Maximilian

Maximilian

Lifer
Did they deliberately limit it to K series only CPU's so we would buy them or was it an architecturally unavoidable thing and they threw us a bone with K series chips? 😕
 
I think I'm dense because I don't understand your questions. AFAIK SB is multilocked except for k series. That's how they were designed. If you're asking where along the manufacturing process the locking occurs I don't know? Or do you mean do all the SB cores come unlocked and then they are locked? Or are they all unlocked and then later in the process get locked?

That is an interesting question actually.

- Mark
 
100% artificial. A 4.5ghz 2C4T i3 would kill too much high end sales, especially for gamers.
 
Last edited:
Yes, Intel gimped all of their "non-K" CPUs. It was a sneaky move putting the PLL clocking on-chip, for all of the peripherals.
 
On the other hand, when has Intel ever released reasonably priced unlocked chips? Before the i7 875k, weren't all their unlocked chips the $1000+ extreme edition processors? That's gotta count for something. Hopefully they don't start raising prices since ~$225 for a 2500K is a good deal.
 
aphelion02 said:
100% artificial. A 4.5ghz 2C4T i3 would kill too much high end sales, especially for gamers.
Click to expand...

This.

Overclocking was never something they supported, with the mentioned exception of the $1000 EE series chips at the very top end of each family.

It was the motherboard manufacturers who 'unlocked' the fsb speed so we could overclock. Keep in mind this was done from the outside of the cpu, now that the base clock speed is inside the cpu Intel decided to lock it up to prevent consumers from getting more than we pay for.
 
Smartazz said:
On the other hand, when has Intel ever released reasonably priced unlocked chips? Before the i7 875k, weren't all their unlocked chips the $1000+ extreme edition processors? That's gotta count for something. Hopefully they don't start raising prices since ~$225 for a 2500K is a good deal.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the Celeron 300A was unlocked?
 
Denithor said:
This.

Overclocking was never something they supported, with the mentioned exception of the $1000 EE series chips at the very top end of each family.

It was the motherboard manufacturers who 'unlocked' the fsb speed so we could overclock. Keep in mind this was done from the outside of the cpu, now that the base clock speed is inside the cpu Intel decided to lock it up to prevent consumers from getting more than we pay for.
Click to expand...

I believe their rationale was to prevent customers from being ripped off. Builders would presumably use a cheaper chip, change the multiplier and sell it for more. This sounds like BS, but that was the reasoning Intel gave iirc.
 
GoStumpy said:
Pretty sure the Celeron 300A was unlocked?
Click to expand...

Only unlocked in the sense that the FSB was typically increased from 66 to 100 to result in a 50% overclock. Very few Intel CPUs starting from that generation had unlocked multipliers.

Considering that a 2500k is more than reasonably priced, I think the overclocking offerings are quite fair.
 
Even though Intel encourages overclocking with unlocked multipliers, the warranty still does not cover overclocked chips.. They even publish overclocking utility software.. Go figure...
 
I suppose they did do it intentionally, but I don't have any anger about it for one single reason: they also released very affordable unlocked chips too. For $30 more than the 2600, you get an i7-2600K that can easily top 4.5ghz without major headaches. This is no different than Chevy de-tuning the Corvette's engine and putting it in a cheaper Camaro. Nor is it much different than AMD crippling a 6-core chip to sell it as a quad core.

All in all, I'm thrilled with the cost/performance ratio of the Sandy Bridge lineup and I don't begrudge Intel from making a modest profit off the desire to overclock.
 
Maximilian said:
Did they deliberately limit it to K series only CPU's so we would buy them or was it an architecturally unavoidable thing and they threw us a bone with K series chips? 😕
Click to expand...

Its pretty clear that they could have made ALL their sandy cpus be "K" or multiplier unlocked cpu's.

That they chose to not do that, that they chose to only release a 2500K and 2600K (pre SB-E) tells you that the lower-priced SKU's were multiplier locked intentionally to keep OC'ing out of that price-point segment.
 
SomeGuyInAR said:
Nor is it much different than AMD crippling a 6-core chip to sell it as a quad core.

All in all, I'm thrilled with the cost/performance ratio of the Sandy Bridge lineup and I don't begrudge Intel from making a modest profit off the desire to overclock.
Click to expand...

How is AMD Selling a 6-core as a 4-core crippling? lol. You can unlock them.
 
richierich1212 said:
Yes. Why buy K-series if you can just overclock the cheaper cpus?
Click to expand...

I think some people would still have bought one, good and cheap multiplier unlocked CPUs have always been a rarity.


SomeGuyInAR said:
I suppose they did do it intentionally, but I don't have any anger about it for one single reason: they also released very affordable unlocked chips too. For $30 more than the 2600, you get an i7-2600K that can easily top 4.5ghz without major headaches. This is no different than Chevy de-tuning the Corvette's engine and putting it in a cheaper Camaro. Nor is it much different than AMD crippling a 6-core chip to sell it as a quad core.

All in all, I'm thrilled with the cost/performance ratio of the Sandy Bridge lineup and I don't begrudge Intel from making a modest profit off the desire to overclock.
Click to expand...

Was wondering when a car analogy would show up 😛


Idontcare said:
Its pretty clear that they could have made ALL their sandy cpus be "K" or multiplier unlocked cpu's.

That they chose to not do that, that they chose to only release a 2500K and 2600K (pre SB-E) tells you that the lower-priced SKU's were multiplier locked intentionally to keep OC'ing out of that price-point segment.
Click to expand...

Yeah i mean the baseclock/FSB method of overclocking though, i dont remember a time when multipliers were upwards unlocked by default. The trend seems to be to put as much stuff on the CPU/package as possible, the first thing i remembered was the math co-processor, then cache, then the memory controller etc etc now the thing that controls the baseclock is on there. Does that have architectural benefits or it is specifically to stop baseclock overclocking? It does fit with the trend of stuffing more things onto the CPU over time.
 
Idontcare said:
Its pretty clear that they could have made ALL their sandy cpus be "K" or multiplier unlocked cpu's.

That they chose to not do that, that they chose to only release a 2500K and 2600K (pre SB-E) tells you that the lower-priced SKU's were multiplier locked intentionally to keep OC'ing out of that price-point segment.
Click to expand...

How many people could possibly be buying low end CPUs then overclocking them? Enthusiasts are a small market, budget minded enthusiasts are even smaller. I guess profit is profit, even if there isn't that much to gain from doing this.
 
Did Intel artificially gimp...?

Yes.

Pretty much any Intel CPU under $1000 is artificially gimped, and even above that there's no guarantee.
 
SomeGuyInAR said:
Nor is it much different than AMD crippling a 6-core chip to sell it as a quad core.
Click to expand...

AMD does not artificially cripple their CPUs. I mean, on an individual basis, yes, some of the quads are capable of running 6-cores, but they aren't worth the trouble to find from AMDs POV.

Another example is the Phenom II X3, which, when it came out, were pretty much all just artificially crippled quads. Once the market accepted the concept of a triple core CPU though, AMD started selling genuinely defective parts as 3-cores.

Edit: Also, look at Bulldozer. They are 100% naturally bad. No artificial gimping involved. Seriously, they give you the CPU as good as they can make it.
 
Last edited:
Smartazz said:
I believe their rationale was to prevent customers from being ripped off. Builders would presumably use a cheaper chip, change the multiplier and sell it for more. This sounds like BS, but that was the reasoning Intel gave iirc.
Click to expand...

and you believe them? swallowing the blue pill I see...
 
Smartazz said:
How many people could possibly be buying low end CPUs then overclocking them? Enthusiasts are a small market, budget minded enthusiasts are even smaller. I guess profit is profit, even if there isn't that much to gain from doing this.
Click to expand...

Its not how may are buying them, its a question of how many 2500K/2600K will elect to not be 2500K/2600K customers and instead buy the even cheaper models.

Its not about locking the low-budget guys out of OC'ing, its about locking the OC'ers out of the low-budget CPUs.
 
the core2duo series is the last of the best overclocking gave us.

taking a 50 dollar processor up to 3.5 ghz (beyond the $300 chips) was the most fun any of us had.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top