Intel Cracks Down on Motherboard Vendors Offering Overclocking on non-Z Chipset

[Durvelle27]

Over the past couple of months, motherboard vendors from across the industry offered BIOS updates for their motherboards based on Intel B85 Express and H87 Express chipsets, which enable CPU overclocking for Intel's unlocked Core processors denoted by "K" brand extension (Core i7-4770K, i5-4670K). This reportedly hasn't gone down well with Intel. Intel's Bxx and Hxx chipsets are significantly cheaper than its Zxx series chipset. Sensing a clear threat to its revenue, from the prospect of motherboard vendors coming up with high-end or overclocking-ready (strong CPU VRM) motherboards based on cheaper chipsets in the near future, Intel cracked down on them.

Intel is giving final touches to a CPU microcode update that restricts Core "K" Haswell processors from overclocking on chipsets other than Z87 Express. A microcode update can be deployed both through BIOS updates, and surreptitiously through Windows Update. Intel's used the tried and tested "stability" bogey to justify the update. While it's true that motherboards based on B85 and H87 tend to feature weaker CPU VRM, there's nothing to say that ASUS wouldn't have gone on to design its next ROG Maximus on H87 Express, and save on manufacturing costs. While it's purely hypothetical, something like that wouldn't be in Intel's commercial interests. What next? Intel will push this new microcode update on to motherboard vendors, instructing them to issue BIOS updates with it; and future batches of Intel "K" CPUs may not support overclocking. If that isn't enough to contain the problem, Intel may give Microsoft a ring, and ask it to push the update through Windows Update




http://www.techpowerup.com/187752/i...s-offering-overclocking-on-non-z-chipset.html

 

[Maximilian]

Cheap bastards

 

[DigDog]

through windows update ? what does Intel have to do with Microsoft ?

 

[SiliconWars]

Come on, nobody is surprised about this.

 

[coffeejunkee]

through windows update ? what does Intel have to do with Microsoft ?

There are bonafide reasons for needing to update the cpu microcode and not everyone is savvy enough to do a bios update so windows update is a good alternative.

But I was expecting this. In a way it's a good thing though. Imagine how many cpu's Intel would sell if they weren't complete a-holes. AMD could probably pack up. So I guess it's their way of dealing with anti-competitiveness laws.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Cheap bastards

Seems to me that this description applies better to those trying to get something they didn't pay for and then complaining when the vendor takes steps to correct it.

These are Intel's products and they can tailor and price them as they see fit. If you don't like the options they are providing, you have your own freedom to choose as well: purchase from a competitor.

 

[coffeejunkee]

Yeah sure, but the competition is lacking in other areas. And regardless, with the K-models Intel took away the possibility of overclocking the lower end cpu's. Ofcourse, it's their call, but that doesn't mean I can't still not like it.

 

[Dufus]

Seems to me that this description applies better to those trying to get something they didn't pay for and then complaining when the vendor takes steps to correct it.

You mean someone paid extra for a 'K' series CPU and is prohibited from using it's unlocked multi's. I don't see your logic.

IMHO I can understand in prohibiting OC when boards are made with weak VRM's but the PCH itself should be price based on it's own features.

 

[VirtualLarry]

IMHO I can understand in prohibiting OC when boards are made with weak VRM's but the PCH itself should be price based on it's own features.

Considering that the Z87 and H87 are likely to be the exact same silicon, the situation is pretty bad. Intel should just charge the same for all of their chipsets.

It was bad enough when they moved from a two-chip set, down to a glorified southbridge, and didn't drop their chipset prices.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

This thread (which actually started first) seems to be identical to the following one (or at least strikingly similar):

Here

 

[Shmee]

This whole thing seems pretty shady, but the problem is, there is no real competition, just an unhealthy duopoly impeding progress. Intel may be in business for themselves, but in my view, the consumer always comes first.

Business exists to please and help the consumer, not the other way around.

 

[Keysplayr]

This whole thing seems pretty shady, but the problem is, there is no real competition, just an unhealthy duopoly impeding progress. Intel may be in business for themselves, but in my view, the consumer always comes first.

Business exists to please and help the consumer, not the other way around.

I totally disagree. I can't picture the first businessman ever saying to himself, "I could sell this to millions and help many people."

I could definitely picture the first businessman ever saying to himself, "I could sell this to millions and make a killing!!!"

Businesses do not exist for the consumer. They exist to give the consumer a product or service for the purpose of turning a profit. That is all. There are rare exceptions. This isn't one of them.

 

[Ancalagon44]

This kind of thing is really, really old. Didnt AMD do something to restrict motherboard vendors who had technology that could unlock the locked cores on a CPU?

Graphics card vendors do it by disabling functional units on GPUs. Its market segmentation. The upside of it is greater choice for the consumer.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Can't blame Intel though, they gotta squeeze the chipset nut dry for maybe an extra $20 million. Otherwise how are they going maintain their process lead and fighting ARM?

This move reeks of desperation to attempt to strongarm a dying market.

 

[piasabird]

Why dont they just sue the motherboard manufacturers. Dont get the Consumer Involved. I can see the end-result now. Motherboards that cost more.