Did intel deliberately gimp overclocking on SB?

[Rifter]

I think with a $200 quad core unlocked part(2500k) that it doesnt matter, there is reasonable priced parts for both overclockers and normal users.

 

[Tsavo]

I think with a $200 quad core unlocked part(2500k) that it doesnt matter, there is reasonable priced parts for both overclockers and normal users.

^That.

 

[Kalessian]

I have not spent more than $80 on a cpu in years. I've had a lot of core2 based stuff, the last cpu I spent more than that on was the first week Conroe came out, to replace my $300 Opty 165. I decided that was the last time I would spend lots of money on new processors.

Really don't mind if I blow up a $70 cpu, so I just overclock it with little regard. The money I save I spend on other PC stuff that I feel will be more noticable.

I would love an unlocked SB i3, it would be the perfect chip for me, but there aren't any. So here I am hoping that AMD can do something with Piledriver.

 

[tweakboy]

Intel rocks, their being gracious to the OC community with the K series...

 

[Concillian]

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.

This.

There was a time when overclocking was unlocking hidden value in your chip.
Now is a time when overclocking is unlocking hidden value in your chip customers.

How many would be i3 and locked i5 consumers purchased k chips due to OC related buzz?

 

[ther00kie16]

I think with a $200 quad core unlocked part(2500k) that it doesnt matter, there is reasonable priced parts for both overclockers and normal users.

But for enthusiasts, $80 barton in 2003/2004 -> $70 conroe in 2006/2007 -> where's my $100 quad that overclocks to match performance of any CPU in 2011?

The $266 q6600 in 2007 was a good step but we have yet to return to the $100 uber CPU and I doubt we ever will. A 4ghz Phenom isn't too shabby but it can't compare to top of the line CPUs today like a 2500+ @2.2ghz or e2160 @3.2ghz did in their days.

 

[antisocialmunky]

The Q6600 was ridiculous though. It basically undercut all Intel's other offerings until they discontinued it to move onto to Westmere.

 

[Kristijonas]

What I found really ridiculous about Intel: They are selling some of their processors with the ability to unlock them LATER by buying some kind of coupons, thus adding +200~ mhz (for example from i3 2100 to i3 2120). It means you buy a hardware then pay extra money for something that costs intel nothing (to unlock those 200mhz with a code in BIOS I think). It means they sell the same CPUs for difference prices. This feels sooooo wrong. Maybe to you americans this feels normal, I don't know, but when I buy something, I want to be in full control of it and not have to pay any extras.

This can be unlocked into something:
http://ark.intel.com/products/53424/Intel-Core-i3-2102-Processor-(3M-Cache-3_10-GHz)
more info:

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/home/intel_now_selling_scratch_coupons_improve_cpu_performance
http://www.crn.com/news/components-...;jsessionid=8Gj+JEUJLifMbiyYi-z5eA**.ecappj01
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/new...processor-good-sense-or-utter-catastrophe.ars

 

[BrightCandle]

All these chips are the same. Whether it be dual core v quad core, less or more cache, higher or lower clock speed its all about the quality of the chip as it was manufactured. Intel tests them, determine which bits are faulty and turns those off (likely with a tiny solder or such) and also determines the ideal performance per watt point for clock speed and voltage.

So when you buy a chip that is a quad core and low clocked, Intel has tested that this is the best point for that chip. You overclock it by pushing more voltage through it and you are then outside of its optimal performance per watt area but it is getting higher performance. If they didn't do this only a very few chips would actually come off of a wafer, its about increasing the volume of workable chips and decreasing cost. Yield is much higher if a single defect does not stop the chip from working but instead just reduces the cache a bit or you can just turn off 2 cores.

Except after a little while the process improves and many if not most of the chips can do the best clock speeds and potentially many are also all quad cores. To counter this they artificially disable parts of the chips to maintain the market segmentation. When the next process comes around they will be back to having worse yields and using the techniques again so its better to just carry it over the different models to make the market stable. It also means that yields go up over time and along with it profitability.

Many CPUs are gimped, but its done for a good reason. Intel brought the clock on board the CPU with SB because it could reduce the cost of motherboards. The CPU has been sucking in functionality like a black hole ever since it was invented, the clock was no exception to this. Overclocking is such a small market segment that they didn't pay any attention to it. The multiplier was locked so that dodgy sellers couldn't pass off chips that were not tested to that standard. The combination gave Intel the current problem and the K series was born. Could just be unintended or it could be a way to get an extra $120 our of enthusiasts who aren't a very price sensitive bunch.

 

[Idontcare]

What I found really ridiculous about Intel: They are selling some of their processors with the ability to unlock them LATER by buying some kind of coupons, thus adding +200~ mhz (for example from i3 2100 to i3 2120). It means you buy a hardware then pay extra money for something that costs intel nothing (to unlock those 200mhz with a code in BIOS I think). It means they sell the same CPUs for difference prices. This feels sooooo wrong. Maybe to you americans this feels normal, I don't know, but when I buy something, I want to be in full control of it and not have to pay any extras.

This can be unlocked into something:
http://ark.intel.com/products/53424/Intel-Core-i3-2102-Processor-(3M-Cache-3_10-GHz)
more info:

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/home/intel_now_selling_scratch_coupons_improve_cpu_performance
http://www.crn.com/news/components-...;jsessionid=8Gj+JEUJLifMbiyYi-z5eA**.ecappj01
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/new...processor-good-sense-or-utter-catastrophe.ars

Do you play video games? Do you refuse to buy DLC and updates that "enhance" the experience you receive from your initial investment?

 

[sm625]

It's not just intel's fault. I am sure asus or gigabyte could place a 133<-> 100 pcie bridge on their motherboards which would then let them add a bios setting to overclock BCLK by 33&#37;. They could put in a similar workaround for anything affected by BCLK being too high.

 

[Kristijonas]

Do you play video games? Do you refuse to buy DLC and updates that "enhance" the experience you receive from your initial investment?

As an administrator you can look into my user profile and infractions. The answer lies there :biggrin: I refuse to pay for patches. Hundreds of games release additional content that is often more than most DLCs offer - for free. As for Intels unlocking of CPU power, it's not the same as DLCs. Intel doesn't need to spend resources and even lift a finger. The higher clocks are there already in the CPU you buy, but you have to pay EXTRA for the same thing to be come more powerful. It's like buying a car and not getting a key to 3 our of 4 doors, getting a speed limit, no lights etc until you pay for everything and have those things enabled. Just an artificial, disgusting money pump.

It's not just intel's fault. I am sure asus or gigabyte could place a 133<-> 100 pcie bridge on their motherboards which would then let them add a bios setting to overclock BCLK by 33&#37;. They could put in a similar workaround for anything affected by BCLK being too high.

I'm sure this technology is given to motherboard manufacturers as it is, with certain contracts that forbid manufacturers from altering certain functions.

 

[Idontcare]

As an administrator you can look into my user profile and infractions. The answer lies there :biggrin:

I really have no idea how this relates to the discussion

As for Intels unlocking of CPU power, it's not the same as DLCs. Intel doesn't need to spend resources and even lift a finger. The higher clocks are there already in the CPU you buy, but you have to pay EXTRA for the same thing to be come more powerful. It's like buying a car and not getting a key to 3 our of 4 doors, getting a speed limit, no lights etc until you pay for everything and have those things enabled. Just an artificial, disgusting money pump.

What makes it a "money pump" in your mind is the fact they don't give it away for free.

There are multiple version of Windows, is that a disgusting money pump?

What about any software which is tiered? Since the product already exists, are they all disgusting money pumps because they want you to pay for the performance/features?

Take Superspeed ramdisk, there are two versions - Standard and Plus. You download the same software but to access the Plus features you pay an extra $20. Is that a disgusting money pump because they make you pay for the features they spent money to implement?

If you paid for an i3 2100, and you get an i3 2100, then I don't see how or why you feel you are entitled to anything other than what you paid for - a compute experience provided by an i3 2100.

 

[CaptainAx]

What I found really ridiculous about Intel: They are selling some of their processors with the ability to unlock them LATER by buying some kind of coupons

This sounds like something that would be released as a torrent when the algo is cracked. Not too worried here.

------------
I7-980X @ 4.35GHz | Corsair H100 | Gigabyte GA-X58-UD7 | 3x2GB Gskill Turbulence DDR3-2200 7-10-10-24 | 2x EVGA SC GTX580 | OCZ Revodrive 240GB | 300GB Velocraptor | Antec TPQ-1200 | Lanboy Air Yellow
I7-2600K @ 4.6GHz| Corsair H100 | Gigabyte P67A-UD7-B3 | 2x4GB Ripjaws DDR3-1333 7-7-7-24 | EVGA SC GTX580 | OCZ Vertex 60GB | 300GB Velociraptor | Corsair AX850 | Lanboy Air Yellow
I7-2600 @ 3.8GHz | Stock | Gigabyte GA-Z68UD2H | 4x4GB Ripjaws DDR3-1333 7-7-7-24 | XFX 5970 BE | 120GB WDC | Corsair AX1200 | Coolermax Elite 341
I7-2500K @ 5.06GHz | Corsair H100 | ASRock Professional Gen3 | 2x4GB Ripjaws DDR3-1333 7-7-7-24 | 300GB Velociraptor | Corsair AX750 | Lanboy Air Blue
I7-2500T @ 2.3GHz | Stock | ASRock Professional Gen3 | 2x4GB Ripjaws DDR3-1333 7-7-7-24 | OCZ Solid3 64GB | Kingwin STR-500 Fanless | HAF912
FX-8150 @ 5.0GHz | Corsair H100| ASUS Crosshair V | 4x4GB Ripjaws DDR3-1866 | Seagate 500GB | AMD HD6450 | Corsair AX750 | Lanboy Air Black
I7-950 @ 3.06 | Stock | Gigabyte GA-X58-USB3 | 3x2GB OCZ DDR3-1333 | 300GB Velocirapter | 8TB Raid5 Sans Digital external | PNY GTX275 | Antec TPQ-1200

 

[Kristijonas]

Let's not compare apples and oranges. We can compare software selling to selling of intelectual property so it's perfectly fine to charge more for more features if the user needs them - BECAUSE THE USER PAYS FOR THE EXTRA WORK. When you buy a piece of hardware it should be up to the user how he wants to use it. It is the users property after all. The user pays for the whole piece of hardware - why should he then pay extra to be able to use MORE of what he already owns ALL ?
I hope I sound comprehensible, English is my second.

This sounds like something that would be released as a torrent when the algo is cracked. Not too worried here.

Or downloading hacked motherboard drivers. But I don't have this problem, I bought a solid processor with no unlocking. Also, that's not how you write your signature, go to the user profile

 

[sno.lcn]

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.

Ever check out the "5GHZ SUPER ULTRA TURBO 2600K MEGA COMPUTER!!" ads on ebay?

 

[IntelEnthusiast]

Let's not compare apples and oranges. We can compare software selling to selling of intelectual property so it's perfectly fine to charge more for more features if the user needs them - BECAUSE THE USER PAYS FOR THE EXTRA WORK. When you buy a piece of hardware it should be up to the user how he wants to use it. It is the users property after all. The user pays for the whole piece of hardware - why should he then pay extra to be able to use MORE of what he already owns ALL ?

You are right you brought a processor that was listed to provide certain stats and you own it you can do anything you want to that processor. But just like that new car that you just brought if you try to drive it without any oil in the engine don’t expect the auto manufacturer to up hold the warranty. In the case of the Intel® Core™ i3-2102 that processor has the same performance and price that the Intel Core i3-2100. However if you would like to buy code to unlock some additional features you can get a performance upgrade. Instead of you buying an Intel Core i3-2100 and if you find that you need more performance making you buy another whole processor, we’re giving you the ability to upgrade the processor that you already own for a small cost. In other words we are doing you a favor and saving you money in the long run.

Christian Wood
Intel Enthusiast Team

 

[Maximilian]

Ever check out the "5GHZ SUPER ULTRA TURBO 2600K MEGA COMPUTER!!" ads on ebay?

The ones where they add up all the cores always make me laugh "2500k 4x3.3ghz = 13.2GHZ CPU!!!!!!"

 

[aigomorla]

guys the op is talking about the locked Qpi Bus which we couldnt touch.

In short, both yes and no to the op's main question...

Yes in the fact that they did gimp us in overclocking by making the Bus highly sensitive, and only allowing multi overclock....

No as in it takes a lot more then what you have now, for you to be able to unlock and overclock the QPI bus.

Part of the reason is the amount of pins required.... 2011 vs 1366 vs 1155... do the math yourself.

yes those pins are important...

 

[Puppies04]

Oh come on, if cpus like the i5 2400 were unlocked how many people would buy them slam 1.5v through them destroy them then call intel and ask for replacements. At that point intel are screwed because they either have to replace a part that wasn't faulty in the first place or refuse to replace it at which point these forums would be full of "Intel are crap, don't give them your money they rip you off" threads because nobody will admit they nailed their own cpu.

You pay a premium for the "k" parts for this reason it covers some of the extra headaches burned out chips cause. I personally can't believe how little Intel sell their I5 2500k for I would happily pay 40&#37; more for it but some people are never happy.

Also to the guy moaning that intel don't have an unlocked I3, didn't they announce one a while back? I haven't heard anything more about it since then though.

 

[Puppies04]

No as in it takes a lot more then what you have now, for you to be able to unlock and overclock the QPI bus. Part of the reason is the amount of pins required.... 2011 vs 1155... do the math yourself.

How many of those extra pins are used up by the 50% more cores and the quad channel rather than dual channel memory controller.

 

[aigomorla]

Oh come on, if cpus like the i5 2400 were unlocked how many people would buy them slam 1.5v through them destroy them then call intel and ask for replacements. At that point intel are screwed because they either have to replace a part that wasn't faulty in the first place or refuse to replace it at which point these forums would be full of "Intel are crap, don't give them your money they rip you off" threads because nobody will admit they nailed their own cpu.

Intel does not cover OVERCLOCKING.

u slam that much voltage, and they may replace it, or MAY NOT.
ive heard a mix of RMA acceptances and fails...

The OP is talking about how when the first SB's came out, they were ALL BUS locked...
MB vendors tried to go around this, and realized.. FAIL, and more FAIL.
Something inside the cpu DIDNT like the BUS being adjusted because it scaled a whole bunch of other stuff with it, which became very unstable.

This is why we got the K's.

Now SB-E showed us, we can have an unlocked bus.... SB-E has MORE pins and is also MORE Expensive.

So the answer to the op's question is a BOTH YES and NO.

 

[formulav8]

In other words we are doing you a favor and saving you money in the long run.

Christian Wood
Intel Enthusiast Team

:whiste:

 

[tigersty1e]

um, $220 2500k + 5.+ghz OC == $999 990x? (well, before the 3960x came out)

like i said. they didn't want to be able to take a $50 core i3 to $999. search google and you'll find a statement by intel on the reason for the k series.

 

[exar333]

like i said. they didn't want to be able to take a $50 core i3 to $999. search google and you'll find a statement by intel on the reason for the k series.

How exactly would a $50 duallie get 'overclocked' to match the fewquency and # of cores (6) of a $999 CPU?

Locking-down sub $150 CPUs is all about not cannibalizing the mid-range offerings. Gamers would snatch-up $50 duallies that could hit 5ghz+ with HT. They would be off the chart for bang/buck in many applications.

Intel segregated their offerings to create more unique SKUs (which makes good business sense). AMDs issue is that they create SKUs all from $100-200 that essentially have the same ceiling when OCd. Why buy the $200 part when the $100 is just as good? You just end-up competing with yourself.