Intel begins selling multiplier unlocked CPUs

[Lonyo]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/c...locked_Multiplier.html

I'm pretty surprised that Intel are doing this.
I mean, it makes sense that they picked the new E6xxx series for it, but still...

Mainland China only for now, but wow, not the news I was expecting on a slow Friday.

 

[ShawnD1]

I think it's more shocking that they haven't done this in the past. Having an unlocked multiplier does not affect business computers, other OEM computers, or even most custom computers. All the locked multiplier does is alienate the enthusiast market. Intel's marketing team must be run by idiots if it took them 40 years to figure out that alienating people is bad.

 

[SSWilson]

Intel CPU's used to be all unlocked until, I think, early Pentium 3's. The started locking due to less scrupulous types remarking them and selling them as faster chips. It was pretty big problem back then.

 

[SickBeast]

Many P2s were multiplier locked. I had a P2 233 that was locked, but it would run at 291mhz on the 83mhz bus.

 

[waffleironhead]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Many P2s were multiplier locked. I had a P2 233 that was locked, but it would run at 291mhz on the 83mhz bus.

Ahh those were the days. Rocking on my ax6bc pro gold. My trusty 233 reaching it's true potential.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: SSWilson
Intel CPU's used to be all unlocked until, I think, early Pentium 3's. The started locking due to less scrupulous types remarking them and selling them as faster chips. It was pretty big problem back then.

They still do that. My 2.4ghz E6600 is currently running at 2.88ghz, so what's to stop me from selling this custom computer as an E6750 or boost the voltage a bit and sell it as a 3ghz E6850? Intel is not able to stop me from doing this, so what's the point of locking the multiplier?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: SSWilson
Intel CPU's used to be all unlocked until, I think, early Pentium 3's. The started locking due to less scrupulous types remarking them and selling them as faster chips. It was pretty big problem back then.

They still do that. My 2.4ghz E6600 is currently running at 2.88ghz, so what's to stop me from selling this custom computer as an E6750 or boost the voltage a bit and sell it as a 3ghz E6850? Intel is not able to stop me from doing this, so what's the point of locking the multiplier?

Nothing keeps you from committing crime, save the deterrent of threat of punishment, and that is as true now as it was back then.

I believe the difference is that now they have more infrastructure in place for deterring the widespread resale of overclocked rigs being sold under the auspices of being a legitimate stock CPU.

For example even if you overclock your E6600 to 3GHz, you can't do anything to make the boot-up screen report your E6600 as a E6850.

So if you were trying to sell your rig as if it were a stock E6850 rig then the buyer already has at least one red flag to take notice of.

And again, the issue wasn't so much the guys working in their basement building a few rigs a month to dupe a few dozen folks a year into buying their OC'ed rigs, it was the the tier-two volume guys who moved hundreds and thousands of rigs a month thru retail chains but had them overclocked. When caught out they just closed the doors and disappeared leaving their customers pissed at Intel and AMD for their unstable and overheating computer.

Its about brand damage. Whoever you sell your E6600 to is going to blame Intel for crappy stability issues until the day he realizes you sold him an overclocked computer. The more Intel and AMD could do to stifle this brand damage the better it was for unsuspecting consumers. It could still happen today of course, nothing can deter crime 100%, idiots are always going to convince themselves they have the system beat.

 

[SSWilson]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: SSWilson
Intel CPU's used to be all unlocked until, I think, early Pentium 3's. The started locking due to less scrupulous types remarking them and selling them as faster chips. It was pretty big problem back then.

They still do that. My 2.4ghz E6600 is currently running at 2.88ghz, so what's to stop me from selling this custom computer as an E6750 or boost the voltage a bit and sell it as a 3ghz E6850? Intel is not able to stop me from doing this, so what's the point of locking the multiplier?

There may be some people selling bus overclocked systems but there aren't people out there changing the info printed on the chips themselves and selling them as something different. Back then, bus overclocking was more difficult, memory didn't cooperate as well as it does today, things were different. Anyway, this is the reason Intel gave for locking its multi's whether the remarking was real or imagined.

 

[faxon]

i think this is a step in the right direction either way. as it is now AMD has unlocked CPUs available from $100 onward for their dual, triple, and quad core lines, and customers are coming to expect this level of tweakability regularly from AMD. if intel wants to hold onto that part of the enthusiast market, they are going to have to step up to the plate and offer a similarly priced unlocked CPU for cheaper as well. they could even copy AMD, speed binning the fastest chip in a given line (pentium dual cores as a whole, E7x00, E8x00, Q8x00, Q9x00 ect). it will still have all the drawbacks of that chip (less cache, missing instructions, lower system bus interfaces ect), just sold as an unlocked CPU based on binning for tweaking. intel could even charge a small price premium for an unlocked one vs a locked one (say $10-20, and you know they will). it just makes sense from a business point of view. the tools are already in place to set it up, they just need to get some new boxes made and they are good to go

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Its about brand damage. Whoever you sell your E6600 to is going to blame Intel for crappy stability issues until the day he realizes you sold him an overclocked computer. The more Intel and AMD could do to stifle this brand damage the better it was for unsuspecting consumers. It could still happen today of course, nothing can deter crime 100%, idiots are always going to convince themselves they have the system beat.

But why don't they lock the FSB? When the Phenom came out and FSB overclocking no longer worked, AMD immediately tried to fix the overclocking problem by selling black edition processors. AMD and Intel are well aware of how important overclocking is, otherwise AMD wouldn't bother selling black edition processors and Intel would lock both the FSB and the multiplier.

OEM computers are already like that. HP doesn't want you to overclock an HP computer, so both the FSB and the multiplier are locked. Intel does want you to overclock and that's why the FSB can be changed on a retail motherboard with an Intel chipset. If Intel really wanted to stop overclocking, they could just snap their fingers and make the chipset only work at 266 or 333 or whatever FSB it's designed for.

 

[lopri]

Excellent move and I hope Intel will follow through the same in the U.S. as soon as possible. I've been complaining about how boring it has become to overclock Intel CPUs for some time, and maybe Intel has heard of it? If this happens in tandem with the launch of Lynnfield (or shortly after), I will be totally sold.

 

[SickBeast]

Many P2s were multiplier locked. I had a P2 233 that was locked, but it would run at 291mhz on the 83mhz bus.

 

[Eeqmcsq]

I read somewhere a while ago that Intel locked their multipliers because it hurt sales of their higher parts. People would buy the lower part and simply increase the multiplier.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Its about brand damage. Whoever you sell your E6600 to is going to blame Intel for crappy stability issues until the day he realizes you sold him an overclocked computer. The more Intel and AMD could do to stifle this brand damage the better it was for unsuspecting consumers. It could still happen today of course, nothing can deter crime 100%, idiots are always going to convince themselves they have the system beat.

But why don't they lock the FSB? When the Phenom came out and FSB overclocking no longer worked, AMD immediately tried to fix the overclocking problem by selling black edition processors. AMD and Intel are well aware of how important overclocking is, otherwise AMD wouldn't bother selling black edition processors and Intel would lock both the FSB and the multiplier.

OEM computers are already like that. HP doesn't want you to overclock an HP computer, so both the FSB and the multiplier are locked. Intel does want you to overclock and that's why the FSB can be changed on a retail motherboard with an Intel chipset. If Intel really wanted to stop overclocking, they could just snap their fingers and make the chipset only work at 266 or 333 or whatever FSB it's designed for.

You lost me somewhere here. Since this is true, and no one is saying it isn't, how does all this ability to overclock chips add up to the following:

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
I think it's more shocking that they haven't done this in the past. Having an unlocked multiplier does not affect business computers, other OEM computers, or even most custom computers. All the locked multiplier does is alienate the enthusiast market. Intel's marketing team must be run by idiots if it took them 40 years to figure out that alienating people is bad.

By your own admission the enthusiast market has had plenty of options to satisfy their desire to overclock their rig, and if Intel or AMD had wanted to stop it then they would have done so thru one of the methods you listed.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
I think it's more shocking that they haven't done this in the past. Having an unlocked multiplier does not affect business computers, other OEM computers, or even most custom computers. All the locked multiplier does is alienate the enthusiast market. Intel's marketing team must be run by idiots if it took them 40 years to figure out that alienating people is bad.

It also kills the motherboard makers.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
By your own admission the enthusiast market has had plenty of options to satisfy their desire to overclock their rig, and if Intel or AMD had wanted to stop it then they would have done so thru one of the methods you listed.

It alienates people by making everything more complicated and difficult than it needs to be. Overclocking my Phenom black has 2 steps:
1 - increase multiplier
2 - increase CPU voltage until it's stable

Overclocking my C2D is a lot more complicated.
1 - lower ram multiplier so only the CPU causes crashing at this time
2 - increase FSB
3 - increase CPU voltage until prime stable
4 - increase chipset voltage until it can detect all of my hard drives (the IDE drives disappear past a certain frequency)
5 - increase ram multiplier and stability test each increment

The stability testing for the Phenom barely takes any time at all but the stability testing for the C2D takes half a day. The boot time for this computer is really bad, so rebooting 20 or 30 times because I have the FSB, 2 voltages, and a multiplier to worry about takes forever.

Overclocking a locked Phenom II is even worse. While you're increasing the core speed, you need to lower both the ram and the HT multipliers. Set the CPU voltage until prime stable, then increase HT multiplier and stability test, then increase the ram multiplier and stability test. That's 3 separate stability testing phases instead of just having 1. This is the level of complexity added by having a locked multiplier.

I read somewhere a while ago that Intel locked their multipliers because it hurt sales of their higher parts. People would buy the lower part and simply increase the multiplier.

That only works when your company has a monopoly on custom computers. Since neither Intel nor AMD have a monopoly on nerd computers, all this does is encourage people to buy processors from their competitor. Let's use an example. Suppose I have decided to buy a quad core and I need to pick between the Phenom II 810 or the Q8200. They're both great processors, but I might go with the Q8200 just because I'm a little more familiar with how those work and how to overclock them. If AMD's 810 was unlocked and I could just change the multiplier, I would definitely get the AMD. How well something overclocks and how easy it is to overclock is the difference between buying from AMD or buying from Intel; crippling your own product does not make it more appealing.

 

[geokilla]

Took Intel long enough to release a response to AMD's highly popular Black Edition CPUs. Now if only they'll drop their Extreme lineup....Who actually buys an Intel Extreme Edition?

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: geokilla
Who actually buys an Intel Extreme Edition?

Anand and Derek probably each have one

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: geokilla
Who actually buys an Intel Extreme Edition?

Anand and Derek probably each have one

Yeah but he asked who BUYS them, not who gets them for free

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: geokilla
Who actually buys an Intel Extreme Edition?

Anand and Derek probably each have one

Yeah but he asked who BUYS them, not who gets them for free

I'm not ashamed to admit I bought a QX6700 the first week they were available, and at a newegg shell-shocker price of $1500.

I wanted the multi unlocked model because I knew the FSB overclocking with quads was going to suck balls for a good year and I intended to put my quad under phase where I didn't want to limited by FSB and/or ram.

A better question to ask is who actually paid for a Skulltrail rig...no one that I know of. (not to be confused with buying a dual-socket workstation or a mac pro, I mean a honest-to-goodness skulltrail mobo)

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
I think it's more shocking that they haven't done this in the past. Having an unlocked multiplier does not affect business computers, other OEM computers, or even most custom computers. All the locked multiplier does is alienate the enthusiast market. Intel's marketing team must be run by idiots if it took them 40 years to figure out that alienating people is bad.

Ya really should learn the history of unlocked multi. In the beginning they were unlocked but people bought them and sold them as higher cost cpus . Don't blame intel for mans greed. Same thing will happen with these In china or were ever . Crooks will up the multi. and sell as more expensive cpu in a pre built.;

I have a great perspective on mankind and that is this . Man is anything but kind

 

[jackschmittusa]

Several things happened to lead to locked multipliers.

Back in the day, you set jumpers on the mb for the multiplier. Mb manuals had charts to set all of the jumpers (fsb, multi, chip brand - Intel, AMD, Cyrix), and you looked your chip on the chart. The crooks sanded off the manufacturer's stamp on the chips and printed a new one that represented a faster model. The bios and boot screens would report the chip based on the jumper settings. People had no way to tell they had a chip with a lower rating.

Then there was the case of the great Celeron 300. It was Intel's cheapest chip, but you could oc the hell out of it. It was such an oc'ers wetdream that many of Intel's more expensive chips suffered a drop off in sales as people chose the cheap chip instead (even in factory rigs). Intel figured they were losing too much money and locked the multipliers on all of their chips.

 

[taltamir]

For example even if you overclock your E6600 to 3GHz, you can't do anything to make the boot-up screen report your E6600 as a E6850.

Actually you CAN... My friend in the computer repair biz came across a customer with a low end nvidia card that has been flashed with custom firmware making it show up as 8800GTX (back when it was top of the line). He was baffled by the low performance until he opened it up and saw what it really was.
Worse thing is, the woman who owned the computer was convinced by the guy who sold her the computer that it was an "honest mistake" and keeps doing business with him. (he also replaced the card with a REAL GTX)

 

[geokilla]

Originally posted by: taltamir

For example even if you overclock your E6600 to 3GHz, you can't do anything to make the boot-up screen report your E6600 as a E6850.

Actually you CAN... My friend in the computer repair biz came across a customer with a low end nvidia card that has been flashed with custom firmware making it show up as 8800GTX (back when it was top of the line). He was baffled by the low performance until he opened it up and saw what it really was.
Worse thing is, the woman who owned the computer was convinced by the guy who sold her the computer that it was an "honest mistake" and keeps doing business with him. (he also replaced the card with a REAL GTX)

At least he didn't scam her to the very end.

 

[MODEL3]

From Q4 2007 and on, with the arrival of the 45nm parts regarding the mainstream's range price levelling:
183$
163$
133$
113$
84$
74$
64$

I always thought that the price difference between
133$ and 113$ models
For example 7500 2,93GHz & 7400 2,8GHz.

& between

84$, 74$ & 64$ models
For example 5400 2,7GHz, 5300 2,6GHz & 5200 2,5GHz.

was a little higher than it should

based on the performance difference which is only 5-10%!

So it is a clever marketing strategy for Intel, to produce a specific quantity of unlocked 133$ & 84$ products,
in order to differentiates these higher priced models with the lower prices ones!

I am not saying this was Intel intention, I just find it a good reason for marketing purpose & for some folks that want to do overclocking with multiplier use.
But like with what XbitLabs is saying,
I don't think that this is what Intel intends!

Probably what Intel wants is to charge more for them


There is the possibility that Intel made this move in order to make an analogue of the ?Black Edition? AMD's series, or for some other reason that we don't know yet!

One possible scenario for example is, that Intel wants to make in the future a whole new product line like the "S" series and their intention is to charge customers more for these CPUs with unlocked multiplier!