Intel updates microcode to block H87/B85 overclocking [BT]

[galego]

From the source:

Intel has long tolerated overclocking on its products, competing enthusiastically with rival AMD to encourage overclocking competitions that allow its chips to hit ever-higher clockspeeds in the name of headlines. The company balances this, however, with a desire not to harm its revenue stream: if customers can get the same performance as a £150 processor from a £100 processor, there's little incentive to spend that extra £50 on a higher-margin product.

Recently, however, several motherboard manufacturers have been releasing BIOS updates for their non-Z-series motherboards - which sell for less than their high-end Z-series equivalents, even when offering much the same feature set - which allow the user to play with the overclocking features of K-series chips. While they don't offer the same overclocking potential as the premium Z-series motherboards, largely thanks to corners cut in other areas such as voltage regulation, they do offer the chance for buyers on a budget to eke a little more power out of their purchases.

However, Intel plans to release a firmware update that limits processor core overclocking only to Intel Z87 based platforms.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2013/07/25/intel-overclocking-block/1

 

[gevorg]

Textbook example of market segmentation/control by Intel, considering that you can have a mild overclock on a K CPU without even raising the voltage.

 

[galego]

The microcode update is also deployed through Windows Update under the "stability" bogey to justify it.

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

 

[VirtualLarry]

If a company has this much market control, it's a textbook example of anti-consumer behavior, and should be broken up.

 

[KingFatty]

Wait, are you sure they are doing this retroactively? Like, you buy a product based on a certain feature, and they are going in later, after the purchase, and disabling that feature?

Hmm, I think I'm OK if they just disable it from the get-go, so you know what you are buying. But I think it's not fair to disable things after you already made your purchasing decision.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

The microcode update is also deployed through Windows Update under the "stability" bogey to justify it.

Surely once a product is released onto the market place, and a customer has bought it, that is it. Because the item(s) are NOT owned by Intel (they are owned by customers), so any interference of the items by another party (such as Intel), is fraud/illegal/nasty/bad/horrible, making the update malware/scareware/illegal/virus/trojan etc.

If you bought a car because it has a 3 litre engine, and can do 130 MPH.

Can the car manufacturer break into your home, remove the engine, and swap it for a 1 litre engine, that can only do 90 MPH ?

If true, that windows update can suddenly (permanently) reduce your computer speed by 10% (or whatever), without your knowledge or permission, and you forked out lots of $'s for the top (advertised to be freely overclockable) K model, I would be VERY angry with Intel.
So what that you don't have a particular model of motherboard, that has got nothing to do with Intel (AFTER) you have bought it.

If they want to offer a stability improving update, which may slow your computer down, and they tell you about what it does before hand, and give you the choice to install it or not, then that is not too unreasonable.

 

[galego]

Wait, are you sure they are doing this retroactively? Like, you buy a product based on a certain feature, and they are going in later, after the purchase, and disabling that feature?

Hmm, I think I'm OK if they just disable it from the get-go, so you know what you are buying. But I think it's not fair to disable things after you already made your purchasing decision.

From the second source:

The microcode update is also deployed through Windows Update under the "stability" bogey to justify it.

 

[galego]

Surely once a product is released onto the market place, and a customer has bought it, that is it. Because the item(s) are NOT owned by Intel (they are owned by customers), so any interference of the items by another party (such as Intel), is fraud/illegal/nasty/bad/horrible, making the update malware/scareware/illegal/virus/trojan etc.

If you bought a car because it has a 3 litre engine, and can do 130 MPH.

Can the car manufacturer break into your home, remove the engine, and swap it for a 1 litre engine, that can only do 90 MPH ?

If true, that windows update can suddenly (permanently) reduce your computer speed by 10% (or whatever), without your knowledge or permission, and you forked out lots of $'s for the top (advertised to be freely overclockable) K model, I would be VERY angry with Intel.
So what that you don't have a particular model of motherboard, that has got nothing to do with Intel (AFTER) you have bought it.

If they want to offer a stability improving update, which may slow your computer down, and they tell you about what it does before hand, and give you the choice to install it or not, then that is not too unreasonable.

How do you interpret the

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.

Do you interpret it as giving users any choice?

 

[Idontcare]

If a company has this much market control, it's a textbook example of anti-consumer behavior, and should be broken up.

A company that makes any profit can be said to be exhibiting anti-consumer behavior. Kinda a pointless tangent you are going on here.

Intel has to deal with warranty issues for its chipsets, what for-profit business wouldn't seek to limit its liabilities?

 

[meloz]

If a company has this much market control, it's a textbook example of anti-consumer behavior, and should be broken up.

I do not like this one bit, but what you are suggesting is going too far. It is up to Intel's rivals to keep them honest, what you propose disincentives excellence. If anything, these kind of petty moves by Intel should help their rival(s), it is just that their rivals are too incompetent to exploit Intel's obsession for high margins.

IMO only time a company should be broken up is when it is clear that they acquire and maintain their dominant position mostly through unethical means, and are using that position to exploit the consumers.

And for all their greed, Intel cannot be accused to have taken the top spot through unethical means (aside from compiler and OEM bribe issue that was settled privately with AMD), they have also made some excellent processors along the way and lead the world in manufacturing technology.

I am ready to abandon Intel and jump ship. But where are the competing products from rivals? That is the biggest problem right now for us enthusiasts, and Intel cannot be held responsible for other people's incompetence.

 

[readymix]

change it after I buy it= consumer fraud. F intel

 

[BallaTheFeared]

change it after I buy it= consumer fraud. F intel

I would think that if there was any blame to be passed around it would be towards the mobo makers.

In fact if I bought one of these with the intent to OC I'd request a z87 replacement from them.

It's not Intels fault at all, I don't see how people come to that conclusion.

 

[monstercameron]

I would think that if there was any blame to be passed around it would be towards the mobo makers.

In fact if I bought one of these with the intent to OC I'd request a z87 replacement from them.

It's not Intels fault at all, I don't see how people come to that conclusion.

and who is pushing the code out?

 

[galego]

and who is pushing the code out?

Intel

 

[SPBHM]

and some people pretend overclock is just a "less than 1%" thing...
Intel has put a lot of effort in trying to block OC... and making money out of it...

wanna overclock? buy the $220+ K CPU + the more expensive Z chipset... in the old days the cheapest possible chipset and CPU would achieve 50% OC...
K OC was never about "just $20" more, you have to consider the (overpriced) PCHs and the fact that the cheapest SB would cost $50, the cheapest unlocked $220 (and I know I'm ignoring the other differences, but that's how it works)

there is 0 good reasons for them to block the multiplier like they do (since the Pentium II?), and even less to not allow changing the multiplier with the unlocked CPU you paid for (and the unlocked multi is one of the main features advertised) with H81-B85-H87 as shown by their partners...


it's a shame also that even the limited "turbo OC" from Sandy-IB was blocked, and that since IB, the poor thermal interface also potentially reduces overclocking...

the BCLK straps is disabled without a K CPU for 1150, it's also disabled for non "i7" CPUs on LGA 2011...

 

[BallaTheFeared]

and who is pushing the code out?

The company protecting their assets against 3rd party vendors who are essentially hacking their products and running them outside of spec.

Intel didn't advertise these chipsets as overclocking boards, the mobo companies did.

I know the Intel boogeyman holds a lot of weight around here, but I think in this case those that bark are doing so up the wrong tree.

 

[readymix]

circle the wagons girls, intel is god.

 

[SPBHM]

Intel didn't advertise these chipsets as overclocking boards, the mobo companies did.

because there should be no such a thing as overclocking board?
the PCH shouldn't be a factor for multi adjustments like that anyway? if you have to go over 33x or whatever for turbo to work anyway? setting it manually like you can play around with so many other settings shouldn't be a big deal.

and they left the door open for that, and it looks to me like it's to late to close now... it would have been better to stay quiet about it, and fix "the problem" when they release new hardware?!

oh well, it was to good to be true I guess.

 

[PPB]

This is what happens when you turn an extra (the ability to OC a chip beyond their stock speeds) into a feature by making people pay for it.

 

[Khato]

Ya know, Intel easily could change to offering only one chipset... and instead just charge that much more for the K series SKUs. Only 'reason' for the current scheme is that it makes the K series look like just a small bump in price to enable overclocking since the majority don't even consider the difference in chipset prices between H87 and Z87.

Who knows, maybe this incident will compel Intel to switch to a single chipset finally... which would actually be detrimental to the motherboard manufacturers' profit margin most likely. (The segmentation is actually a good thing for them.)

 

[Arachnotronic]

I see most of the people in this thread think profit is evil. Lord help you if you ever try to start your own businesses.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I see most of the people in this thread think profit is evil. Lord help you if you ever try to start your own businesses.

Wait until they realize how rich they're making the people they work for...

 

[Arachnotronic]

Wait until they realize how rich they're making the people they work for...

Naw, man, only evil Intel works for profits! Everybody else is a choir of happy elves eagerly designing and assembling sophisticated, multi-billion transistor chips and selling them at a loss. I mean, I guess if doing this is the way CPU vendors should be run, AMD is the best CPU vendor ever.

 

[monstercameron]

Naw, man, only evil Intel works for profits! Everybody else is a choir of happy elves eagerly designing and assembling sophisticated, multi-billion transistor chips and selling them at a loss. I mean, I guess if doing this is the way CPU vendors should be run, AMD is the best CPU vendor ever.

I find it strange that anti-consumer behavior is celebrated...because it's not like you are invested in this behavior?

 

[frozentundra123456]

Wait, are you sure they are doing this retroactively? Like, you buy a product based on a certain feature, and they are going in later, after the purchase, and disabling that feature?

Hmm, I think I'm OK if they just disable it from the get-go, so you know what you are buying. But I think it's not fair to disable things after you already made your purchasing decision.

But did Intel ever state those motherboards could be overclocked, or was this just a feature added by the mb makers? I don't really see what Intel gains by forcing users to buy a higher end mob, since they don't really sell mb any more. Or am I misunderstanding what the source is claiming they are doing?

If they are disabling overclocking on non-k chips, that is unfortunate, but technically they never advertised them as being overclockable did they?

I think the best thing is to take this with a grain of salt until we see what actually happens.