Haswell overclocking

[lagokc]

http://anandtech.com/show/6898/intel-details-haswell-overclocked-at-idf-beijing

So apparently the BCLK can be set from 100 to 125 or 167 now. I think only the i7 and i5s have been announced so far, anyone want to take bets on whether it will be easy to take a 4330 from 3ghz to 5ghz on air?

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Wait a minute. So some will be able to overclock like the i7 920s ? And the K models will have an unlocked multiplier? That sounds pretty neat!

 

[jpiniero]

I'm highly skeptical that BCLK overclocking is going to be available for anything other than the K models.

 

[Fx1]

i fail to see why an unlocked BCLK is worth a damn when you have an unlocked multi?

 

[lagokc]

i fail to see why an unlocked BCLK is worth a damn when you have an unlocked multi?

If I'm reading this correctly, the K series will have unlocked multipliers but ALL Haswell have the BCLK adjustments available. So maybe cheap Celeron/Pentium overclocking next year. Maybe.

 

[SPBHM]

i fail to see why an unlocked BCLK is worth a damn when you have an unlocked multi?

for the same reason BCLK OC is useful for the i7 3820,
not every CPU is unlocked,


I hope this is true, and extended to any lga 1150 CPU (like the future celerons)

 

[lagokc]

for the same reason BCLK OC is useful for the i7 3820,
not every CPU is unlocked,


I hope this is true, and extended to any lga 1150 CPU (like the future celerons)

Intel probably finally realized that even giving their dual-cores a 66% overclock will not turn them into quad-cores so they aren't really losing that many high-end sales. Now if only they'd release a K series dual-core Celeron for the hobbiest overclockers.

 

[jpiniero]

i fail to see why an unlocked BCLK is worth a damn when you have an unlocked multi?

It would give you more options for optimizing the clock speed. Say, if 4375 required far less voltage than 4400, would you do it?

 

[Fx1]

It would give you more options for optimizing the clock speed. Say, if 4375 required far less voltage than 4400, would you do it?

Maybe.

The BCLK just caused me headaches when i had to find a stable number with my i7 950

 

[VirtualLarry]

Intel will probably cripple the Haswell Pentium/Celeron instruction sets just like the SB and IB ones. No AVX (nevermind AVX2!), no AES-NI, etc.

Edit:Which makes me wonder, why bother even releasing HW dual-cors at all?

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

The BCLK just caused me headaches when i had to find a stable number with my i7 950

Wasn't that bad, and it's part of the fun.
Overclocking the 2500K and 3570K was just way too easy compared to my old 920 D0.

 

[Fx1]

Haswell Feels like a total cop out.

They give back unlocked BCLK which they took away...

They give back proper TIM which they took away...

This explains the poor increase in performance and the reason why overclocks have been stuck at a brick wall since Sandy bridge despite die shrinks.

It seems to me that since Nehalem not much has really changed. Unlocked FSB and multipliers have been around forever.

This is what happens when there is a lack of competition.

 

[Homeles]

They give back unlocked BCLK which they took away...

Because of technical reasons. And they never took BCLK overclocking away -- it just became futile. There are components tied to the base clock that quickly become unstable when ran a few % outside of specification. Only a fool would suggest that Intel intentionally neutered BCLK overclocking.

They give back proper TIM which they took away...

There's been no confirmation that it's coming back, AFAIK. Seriously though, who cares? Either de-lid or deal with it.

This explains the poor increase in performance and the reason why overclocks have been stuck at a brick wall since Sandy bridge despite die shrinks.

No, it has nothing to do with that. And it's "die shrink," as in the singular form. Stop being a drama queen. You're lying in order to try to make a point, which speaks quite well to how contrived your ridiculous argument is.

It seems to me that since Nehalem not much has really changed. Unlocked FSB and multipliers have been around forever.

Clock domains. Read about them. Until you do, can it.

This is what happens when there is a lack of competition.

When what happens? All I see here is someone that has no clue of what they are talking about -- an armchair electrical engineer, who's bitter that both physics and Intel's development strategy aren't pandering to his selfish needs.

Edit:Which makes me wonder, why bother even releasing HW dual-cors at all?

Cost.

Here's a question for you: Why wouldn't they?

 

[Fx1]

Because of technical reasons.
There's been no confirmation that it's coming back, AFAIK. Seriously though, who cares? Either de-lid or deal with it.
No, it has nothing to do with that. And it's "die shrink," as in the singular form. Stop being a drama queen. You're lying in order to try to make a point, which speaks quite well to how contrived your ridiculous argument is.
Clock domains. Read about them. Until you do, can it.
When what happens? All I see here is someone that has no clue of what they are talking about -- an armchair electrical engineer, who's bitter that both physics and Intel's development strategy aren't pandering to his selfish needs.

Intel tells you its technical reasons why they took out BCLK unlocked frequencies. Do you really think Intel are going to come out and tell you the real reasons?

Quite frankly i think the TIM is VERY important and delidding is a total BS solution to fix something that shouldnt be a problem.

Intel has it all planned out. They drip feed performance improvement at a very steady rate so that every year they have a new product which is slightly better than last year.

Do you really think that a company that can put billions of transistors in a few millimetres can then make an epic screw up like using cheap thermal paste instead of the TIM that has been used for years? It makes more sense to me for intel to intentionally limit the overclocks and performance in order to maintain the small increases in performance.

Who would buy a new CPU that performs worse than the last one?

BMW do EXACTLY the same. Every time a refresh of an exsisting model comes out they use LED lighting on the car. Then when they make a new model they go back to light bulbs.... then the refresh comes and back to LED... This is how they keep milking the market for money.

 

[Homeles]

Intel tells you its technical reasons why they took out BCLK unlocked frequencies. Do you really think Intel are going to come out and tell you the real reasons?

Do you even own a Sandy Bridge processor? You can play with the BCLK all you'd like -- just don't expect it to boot. If Intel "took it away," it'd be totally locked.

Intel is actually very good at disclosing technical information, relative to the rest of the industry. You wouldn't know this, because you're so blatantly indoctrinated to believe that they are the embodiment of evil.

Quite frankly i think the TIM is VERY important and delidding is a total BS solution to fix something that shouldnt be a problem.

It's only a big deal because you and all of the other whiny enthusiasts made a big deal of it. If the product runs fine at stock, and the performance benefits are outweighed by the cost, why not?

Here's a question for you:
Why are you more important that 99% of the consumers out there?

Intel has it all planned out. They drip feed performance improvement at a very steady rate so that every year they have a new product which is slightly better than last year.

I heard Elvis is still alive and that NASA never sent a man to the moon.

Do you really think that a company that can put billions of transistors in a few millimetres can then make an epic screw up like using cheap thermal paste instead of the TIM that has been used for years?

Only selfish enthusiasts like yourself consider it to be a "screw up." Stop thinking about you. You are not more important than the vast majority.

It makes more sense to me for intel to intentionally limit the overclocks and performance in order to maintain the small increases in performance.

It really doesn't matter what makes sense to you, because what makes sense to you does not make sense to any sane, educated human being. You always post the most ridiculous garbage that I have ever seen.

Who would buy a new CPU that performs worse than the last one?

AMD fanboys. Point in case: Bulldozer.

Anyways, your question is utterly irrelevant. Ivy Bridge was an improvement over Sandy Bridge. Haswell will certainly be an improvement over Ivy Bridge.

Even if overclocking was worse, this goes back to the whole 99% thing. Why are you more important than the vast majority?

Your selfishness and ignorance are insufferable.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Edit : [forget] it - staying on the sidelines in my comfy lawnchair w/popcorn*

No profanity in the tech forums
-ViRGE

 

[Fx1]

Do you even own a Sandy Bridge processor? You can play with the BCLK all you'd like -- just don't expect it to boot. If Intel "took it away," it'd be totally locked.

Intel is actually very good at disclosing technical information, relative to the rest of the industry. You wouldn't know this, because you're so blatantly indoctrinated to believe that they are the embodiment of evil.
It's only a big deal because you and all of the other whiny enthusiasts made a big deal of it. If the product runs fine at stock, and the performance benefits are outweighed by the cost, why not?

Here's a question for you:
Why are you more important that 99% of the consumers out there?
I heard Elvis is still alive and that NASA never sent a man to the moon.
Only selfish enthusiasts like yourself consider it to be a "screw up." Stop thinking about you. You are not more important than the vast majority.
It really doesn't matter what makes sense to you, because what makes sense to you does not make sense to any sane, educated human being. You always post the most ridiculous garbage that I have ever seen.
AMD fanboys. Point in case: Bulldozer.

Anyways, your question is utterly irrelevant. Ivy Bridge was an improvement over Sandy Bridge. Haswell will certainly be an improvement over Ivy Bridge.

Even if overclocking was worse, this goes back to the whole 99% thing. Why are you more important than the vast majority?

Your selfishness and ignorance are insufferable.

Id say when one core is running 10-20 degrees hotter than the other 3 cores this is a pretty poor showing. You can defend your hero company all you like but id say this is poor.

Selfishness? lol please explain? Just because i think Intel is drip feeding small performance increases...

 

[Homeles]

Id say when one core is running 10-20 degrees hotter than the other 3 cores this is a pretty poor showing.

What kind of drugs are you taking? They must be awesome, because you're tripping pretty hard.

You can defend your hero company all you like but id say this is poor.

They're not my hero company. All I'm doing here is shitting all over your moronic conspiracy theories.

Selfishness? lol please explain? Just because i think Intel is drip feeding small performance increases...

You're selfish because you believe that you're more important than 99% of consumers.

 

[Fx1]

What kind of drugs are you taking? They must be awesome, because you're tripping pretty hard.
They're not my hero company. All I'm doing here is shitting all over your moronic conspiracy theories.
You're selfish because you believe that you're more important than 99% of consumers.

You sound like your on a drink fuelled rant.

I have seen the threads on this very forum where an owner of a 3770k has had to remove the IHS because he has one hot core because the TIM doesnt cover the CPU correctly. OR are you saying there is no issue here and people are taking the IHS off just for kicks?

So you have to void your warranty on your enthusiast chip which you paid extra for all because intel wants to save a few pennies on thermal paste...

Why do i believe im more important than 99% of their customers exactly? i cant make any sense of this in your rant..

 

[Homeles]

You sound like your on a drink fuelled rant.

I'm quite sober. Ignorant, anti-intellectual cunts like you piss me off.

I have seen the threads on this very forum where an owner of a 3770k has had to remove the IHS because he has one hot core because the TIM doesnt cover the CPU correctly.

Okay? Welcome to life -- mistakes happen. How old are you, five? Pretty much everybody older than that has figured out that not every product that comes out of a factory is manufactured correctly.

So you have to void your warranty on your enthusiast chip which you paid extra for all because intel wants to save a few pennies on thermal paste...

Overclocking voids the warranty already, dumbass. You're just mad that you can't overclock it to high heaven and get away with it.

Like I said: You're selfish.

Why do i believe im more important than 99% of their customers exactly? i cant make any sense of this in your rant..

That's because you're [a wonderful person]. Real shocker there!

Well this post got you an infraction. Keep it up and a vacation is in your future. No cussing or insults allowed.
Markfw900
Anandtech Moderator.

Since I have to spoon-feed everything to your infantile brain, allow me:

People that overclock are in a very, very small minority. People that push their systems to their absolute max -- in the ranges that we're talking about here -- are an even smaller minority. I.e. (this means "that is," which you probably didn't know), not everybody who overclocks pushes it to the maximum stable clocks.

The number of users directly affected by a switch in TIM are incredibly small. I'm throwing out a 1% number. I don't know what it actually is, but you'd be an idiot to suggest that it's a statistically relevant number.

On the other hand, the rest of the users out there don't give a [hoot]. Soldering the IHS raises cost, and it's not just some cheap tin solder either. These costs are passed onto the consumer. Intel has pretty high margins, but you'd have to be economically illiterate to suggest that the manufacturing cost has no influence on the retail pricing.

Since 99% of users are virtually unaffected by the change in TIM and could benefit from the cost savings, it is selfish to suggest that the costs be passed onto everybody for the benefit of the 1%. Since you are suggesting this, you are selfish.

Q.E.D.

Here's news for you: AMD uses cheap paste on their CPUs as well. Why aren't you moaning about them? Because Ivy Bridge got caught up in bad press -- AMD's processor did not. There have been past Intel CPUs that use cheap TIM as well, and I bet you didn't hear anything about them. You have been brainwashed by the enthusiast community into believing that this is a big deal.

 

[jpiniero]

because the TIM doesnt cover the CPU correctly

If that was the case, then the chip would fry. I really think the TIM choice was intended to maximize lifetime of the chip (at stock speeds) due to the increased heat density.

 

[Homeles]

If that was the case, then the chip would fry. I really think the TIM choice was intended to maximize lifetime of the chip (at stock speeds) due to the increased heat density.

Soldering would still provide better heat transfer. It's likely that Intel found the lowered TDP of Ivy Bridge to not merit soldering the IHS to the die.

Better heat transfer = lower temps = lower power consumption and longer longevity of the IC.

However, if we're talking about a very small temperature difference, it doesn't make sense to raise manufacturing costs and solder for little benefit.

 

[Maximilian]

Yeah i like how AT cut the bottom of that slide out

 

[aarontpx]

On the other hand, the rest of the users out there don't give a [hoot]. Soldering the IHS raises cost, and it's not just some cheap tin solder either. These costs are passed onto the consumer. Intel has pretty high margins, but you'd have to be economically illiterate to suggest that the manufacturing cost has no influence on the retail pricing.

How do you know these costs are passed on to the consumer...they could just as easily use the cost difference to PAD those same margins.

 

[aarontpx]

It's likely that Intel found the lowered TDP of Ivy Bridge to not merit soldering the IHS to the die.

That is exactly what they claim.