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

[Nemesis2038]

Just kidding on the cyrix but do us overclockers make up that much of the sales that both Intel and AMD are blocking overclocking.

I just read the Intel 915/925 chips have overclocking blocks in them.
If you overclock beyond 10% then it crashes the machine.

Toms Hardware

 

[Falloutboy]

amd isn't blocking overclocks

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Falloutboy525
amd isn't blocking overclocks

What they have done is just tried to ensure that there will be no more aftermarket "fiddling" with the CPUs so that scumbags can sell a 2500+ as a 3200+ ect. That's why they locked the 32bit desktop chips and capped the A64 at the default multi.

 

[someone16]

AMD has the FX as the O/C line, so its still alive

 

[Falloutboy]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: Falloutboy525
amd isn't blocking overclocks

What they have done is just tried to ensure that there will be no more aftermarket "fiddling" with the CPUs so that scumbags can sell a 2500+ as a 3200+ ect. That's why they locked the 32bit desktop chips and capped the A64 at the default multi.

this is true but its not like intel hasn't been doing this for years. also thier still releasing mobile chips for socket A

 

[Nemesis2038]

DAPUNISHER That we all can agree too. The remarkers need to be stopped.

I usually buy from newegg whenever possible. I no longer go to computer shows where a lot of these chips show up as well as the overnight mom and pop shops with too good to be true prices.

AMD is blocking overclocking. They make you buy the FX line at a premium to be unlocked. My Athlon 64 I bet would overclock higher if I could tweek the multiplier.

Im just dissapointed Intel looks to be doing the same as AMD now. But then Prescott's arent something to be overclocked because of the heat issue. Maybe a good thing because I would be pretty sure AMD will run into similar heat issues with 9 micron so overclocking might yeild low results.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

It does seem like we are approaching a wall in terms of what they can do with air cooling. I think it is one of the primary reasons that multi-core CPUs are the future.

 

[Nemesis2038]

What do you think of Apple with thier liquid cooling? Im waiting for the first person who has their carpet ruined by one of these machines.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Nemesis2038
What do you think of Apple with thier liquid cooling? Im waiting for the first person who has their carpet ruined by one of these machines.

I haven't looked at it closely so I can't really comment beyond my belief that Apple would have carefully considered this from an engineering perspective and taken precautions to limit the possibility that the integrity of the cooling system in terms of reliability in all aspects could be compromised without tampering.

 

[Nemesis2038]

I cant wait to see how that fits in with a few tech's A+ certifications.

Is he a Computer Tech or an Air Conditioner and Refridgeration technician?

Hey I got a new slogan for Apple:

Got Freon?

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: someone16
AMD has the FX as the O/C line, so its still alive

something tells me that the FX line isnt AMDs best seller...

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: shady06

Originally posted by: someone16
AMD has the FX as the O/C line, so its still alive

something tells me that the FX line isnt AMDs best seller...

I'll bet it was your avatar told you that

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Nemesis2038
DAPUNISHER That we all can agree too. The remarkers need to be stopped.

I usually buy from newegg whenever possible. I no longer go to computer shows where a lot of these chips show up as well as the overnight mom and pop shops with too good to be true prices.

AMD is blocking overclocking. They make you buy the FX line at a premium to be unlocked. My Athlon 64 I bet would overclock higher if I could tweek the multiplier.

Im just dissapointed Intel looks to be doing the same as AMD now. But then Prescott's arent something to be overclocked because of the heat issue. Maybe a good thing because I would be pretty sure AMD will run into similar heat issues with 9 micron so overclocking might yeild low results.

Amd is not blocking overclcokers like Intel is, infact they are not blocking them at all but scam artist resellers instead. Up FSB or HTT depending on presessor and it's overclcoked. Try and do this with Intel and they will crash your machine. Totally different approaches. Ones to stop the enthusisasts, ones not, both are to stop the scam artists.

And intel locks the multi too.

They make you buy the FX line at a premium to be unlocked
----------------
They don't MAKE you do anything. Get yourself a mobile XP for 1/10th the cost, a shuttle mobo for 1/4th the cost, crank it to 2700Mhz, and I doubt you'll see a perfromance difference w/o using benchmarking tools.

 

[Nemesis2038]

Thanks Anandtech for the ASUS mobo article. This puts the mind at ease that there could potentially be bios hacks for other motherboards that will remove this limitation.

This also indicates that Intel yeilds are possibly corrected in 9micron strained silicon. Woohoo.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: someone16
AMD has the FX as the O/C line, so its still alive

And intel has the EE

All EEs are unlocked.

 

[imported_zenwhen]

^^^


No they aren't. haha

 

[clarkey01]

"something tells me that the FX line isnt AMDs best seller... "

I dont think it's suppose to be, yeah sure they'd like it to be , but they didnt bring it to the market to be there main form of income, its more for enthusiasts & a sort of ? yeah we got the best cpu look at us?. I?m think I?m rite in saying more fx?s have sold then P4EE?s, maybe due to the overclocking abilities, perhaps, or the fact a overclocked 2.9Ghz fx beats a P4EE at 4 Ghz, toms showed.

 

[serverlag]

Originally posted by: Nemesis2038
Thanks Anandtech for the ASUS mobo article. This puts the mind at ease that there could potentially be bios hacks for other motherboards that will remove this limitation.

Wut article r u referring to?! mes got an Asus mobo and I sure like to bios hack it for some more FSB-Power...

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: serverlag

Originally posted by: Nemesis2038
Thanks Anandtech for the ASUS mobo article. This puts the mind at ease that there could potentially be bios hacks for other motherboards that will remove this limitation.

Wut article r u referring to?! mes got an Asus mobo and I sure like to bios hack it for some more FSB-Power...

Article

I think the panic is premature.

1. No one said OEM suppliers of motherboards will have the same lock
2. No one said this Intel strategy is going to be successful and will remain in the future
3. Right now you can overclock any Intel cpu by increasing the FSB, but A64 is faster at gaming and office apps which matter more to most users. So even if you could overclock the Intel processor, would you still buy it? Right now I wouldn't. I think overall cpu performance is a far greater issue that Intel has to address very soon.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: Falloutboy525
amd isn't blocking overclocks

What they have done is just tried to ensure that there will be no more aftermarket "fiddling" with the CPUs so that scumbags can sell a 2500+ as a 3200+ ect. That's why they locked the 32bit desktop chips and capped the A64 at the default multi.

Dapanuisher, I've been wondering a little about this. Were minor resellers selling 2500+ chips as 3200+ chips? I don't understand why AMD would lock the multiplier because of this when it was the FSB that was required to be upped for the 2500+ to become a 3200+, effectively. Or, were people upping the multiplier so that the 2500+ was running at the same mhz as a 3200+ albeit on a 333mhz FSB and claiming it was a 3200+? I was never around when this happened, so I never quite understood it.

 

[Nemesis2038]

http://www.anandtech.com/chipsets/showdoc.html?i=2092

Anand outlines the idea of mating alternate chips together and that reducing the multiplier and setting the FSB higher is a workaround. The latter method has been around in both camps for a while. I dont consider this overclocking since it comprimises the USB, FIREWIRE, and other cards on the motherboard despite having dividers to offset the overclock. Most people who dont use USB or especially FIREWIRE ports dont notice those ports are FSB overclock friendly.

I suspect there will be bios hacks around this. Much like the bios hack I could apply to my radeon 9500 however the softmod is working great. But its nice to have an alternative.

If we look at why they lock at 10% overclock it makes perfect sense. Using pricewatch as a model we see a P4 3.0Ghz CPU is 208.00 while the P4 3.4 is 500.00 Over Twice the price for a mere 13% speed difference. Why would anyone buy the 3.4 when they could easily use the 3.0Ghz for 208.00 and overclock it to the 3.4. No one would buy the 3.4 chip if that was near the highest the chip manufacturing process would yeild. By blocking with 10% they hope to get people who want more speed to buy the 3.4 if they needed the speed. However they didnt do their homework and you can still drop the multiplier and bump up the FSB.

Just my simple analogy not to be taken as highest overclock possible with the chips.

 

[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.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Avalon

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: Falloutboy525
amd isn't blocking overclocks

What they have done is just tried to ensure that there will be no more aftermarket "fiddling" with the CPUs so that scumbags can sell a 2500+ as a 3200+ ect. That's why they locked the 32bit desktop chips and capped the A64 at the default multi.

Dapanuisher, I've been wondering a little about this. Were minor resellers selling 2500+ chips as 3200+ chips? I don't understand why AMD would lock the multiplier because of this when it was the FSB that was required to be upped for the 2500+ to become a 3200+, effectively. Or, were people upping the multiplier so that the 2500+ was running at the same mhz as a 3200+ albeit on a 333mhz FSB and claiming it was a 3200+? I was never around when this happened, so I never quite understood it.

There were news stories at the time about counterfeit AMD CPUs being discovered. It was mostly the duron, t-bird through XP lines as oppossed to Barton so my example was terrible link link2

Google will show you many more.

 

[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.

 

[MDE]

It doesn't matter if they only lose $2 due to the remarked chips, any unstable remarked chips will be seen as condusive of AMD's entire product line and that could cost them billions down the road.