Intel and AMD block overclocks. Who's next Cyrix?

[Avalon]

Wow, that's crazy...so that's why AMD locked the multipliers? Makes sense now. I thought it was just because of the 2500+. I was asking because I remember a short while back when I sold a mobile 2500+ on eBay, I said in the description that after OCing, it can run like a 3200+ and higher. Some guy contacted me and was blaming me for AMD locking their desktop line, and was threatening to report me to AMD and eBay. I was wondering what the deal was with that crazy dude.

 

[imported_elec999]

This is kind of offtopic but how did you serverlag get 512mb infineon PC2100 CL2 @390. What voltage did you use, etc. I cannot get my infeon 512mb pc2100 to overclock at all.
Thanks

 

[BadThad]

Originally posted by: Mellman
Are they really losing that much money? How many people do you know that overclock....people on AT and other boards represent such a small number of the actual consumer base, freaking out about what i'd wager to say...i wont even say, because i have no data to back it up, but what percentage of computer users overclock? A couple hundred people on this board, we'll even go up to a few thousand maybe? MAYBE?

Among my group of friends and people who attend lan parties i host (>50 people) maybe one other person at the lans overclocks their computer, most either dont know how, or dont even know what overclocking is, the rest just simply dont care about it enough to try it.

The vast majority of Intel CPU's are NOT sold to the overclocking community, so it couldn't be about money. More than likely it's more about shady people selling an overclocked system for a LOT more money because it may appear to have a faster, more expensive CPU than it really does. Look at the price example Nemesis2038 gave....that's the kind of additional markup that could be had by a system reseller.

Nonetheless, I think Intel doing this is pure BS. If we want to OC our systems, then leave us alone to do it. We overclockers fully accept the risks assciated with OCing. We don't need "big brother" trying to control what we do with hardware that WE PAID FOR.

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: BadThad

Originally posted by: Mellman
Are they really losing that much money? How many people do you know that overclock....people on AT and other boards represent such a small number of the actual consumer base, freaking out about what i'd wager to say...i wont even say, because i have no data to back it up, but what percentage of computer users overclock? A couple hundred people on this board, we'll even go up to a few thousand maybe? MAYBE?

Among my group of friends and people who attend lan parties i host (>50 people) maybe one other person at the lans overclocks their computer, most either dont know how, or dont even know what overclocking is, the rest just simply dont care about it enough to try it.

The vast majority of Intel CPU's are NOT sold to the overclocking community, so it couldn't be about money. More than likely it's more about shady people selling an overclocked system for a LOT more money because it may appear to have a faster, more expensive CPU than it really does. Look at the price example Nemesis2038 gave....that's the kind of additional markup that could be had by a system reseller.

Nonetheless, I think Intel doing this is pure BS. If we want to OC our systems, then leave us alone to do it. We overclockers fully accept the risks assciated with OCing. We don't need "big brother" trying to control what we do with hardware that WE PAID FOR.

so how exactly do you prevent shady middlemen from selling remarked processors while still allowing the rest of us to overclock?

 

[Cerb]

Also, you guys are forgetting two things:
1. Mobo manufacturers are breaking the lock.
2. SiS offers good P4 chipsets, with performance and reliability similar to Intel.

Intel might be cutting down on overclocking, but how many overclockers buy their mobos from Intel?
Also, they may have only gotten a 24% OC, but unless that was a common max among the CPUs, it could just be the speed limit of that small sample.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Nemesis2038
Sorry meant to say USB and Especially FIREWIRE are not FSB Overclock friendly. Try porting in digital video with a high FSB and you will see. USB is somewhat friendly but I have had a few USB Hard Drives that do not appreciate the FSB overclock.

The multiplier method is far more stable method than the FSB method being a better performance increase when using a lot of external devices.

This is when PCI cards come in handy. With several chipsets on both sides, you get AGP/PCI locked at 66 2/3 and 33 1/3 MHz.