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

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Here is a more realistic scenario based on what is actually happening.

You buy a board for a shady dealer, says it comes with a Windows 8 key. You buy the board, you get home, you enter the key, all is well. Three days later Windows tells you your cdkey isn't legit and you need a new one.

Is it Microsoft's fault, or the shady motherboard dealer who sold you the fake CD key?

That's a VERY good answer! :awe::awe::awe:

Your story could be continued because there has been talk (I'm not sure if it has been done or used yet) of Microsoft, not only automatically detecting these "stolen" licences, but even automatically disabling them, when found.

I kind of agree with your reasoning here.

I suppose the $64,000,000 question is, were the dealers and motherboard makers apparently 100% legitimate to the customer. In which case I have huge sympathies with the customers.
Or was the customer aware of the "dodgy" dealings, in which case I would not feel so bad, if Intel caused their dodgy motherboard to work the way it was originally intended.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

If I was silly enough to buy H87 or B85 to overclock a K series chip and it was advertised to allow overclocking of K cpu's I would be on the horn to the mobo manufacturer getting a free upgrade to z87.

 

[tynopik]

Here is a more realistic scenario based on what is actually happening.

You buy a board for a shady dealer, says it comes with a Windows 8 key. You buy the board, you get home, you enter the key, all is well. Three days later Windows tells you your cdkey isn't legit and you need a new one.

Is it Microsoft's fault, or the shady motherboard dealer who sold you the fake CD key?

Someone clearly doesn't understand the situation at all.

 

[SPBHM]

They are not much cheaper either. The big motherboard price differnce comes from components.

I didnt say the PCH was the cause of it. But rather the rest of the components. A 70$ board will not contain the same components or design as a 130$ board. But if that board goes up in smoke, bad PR could happen. And not only to the mobo maker.

Mobo makers simply take current non designed boards for OC to be OC boards.

not much cheaper x 1000 is a lot of money, and $1 will aways become more for the consumer.

again, that's not the PCH problem,
$70 MB can have lower quality audio, lan, 2 memory slots, look bad, and still be enough to handle decent overclocking... I paid $50-60 for my OC friendly (with a bios full of OC options, thanks Gigabyte, and they used that to their advantage with OC being advertised on the box) G31 board 5 years ago.

their current designs probably have some room for OC,
if they had OC (manual multiplier settings) enabled H81/B85 for a longer period they could probably optimize their MB designs and marketing around that, giving you lower cost OC instead of having 300 slots, a huge PCB and shiny components.

 

[tynopik]

I suppose the $64,000,000 question is, were the dealers and motherboard makers apparently 100% legitimate to the customer.

This is the easy question.

The answer is: yes, absolutely.

There was NOTHING forbidding the companies from making OCable motherboards with those chipsets.

It was perfectly legitimate, and then customers buy a product based on what it legitimately does . . .

if Intel caused their dodgy motherboard to work the way it was originally intended.

Whether they 'intended' it to work or not is irrelevant.

Better example would be a car that comes with 40 more hp stock than anticipated. People review it and realize that it's pretty close to the 'sport' model that costs much more. People rush out to buy car based on reports of how wonderful it is. The car manufacturer realizes they made a mistake and so they next time the car is brought in for service, they detune the engine to bring it back in line with what they originally intended.

 

[ShintaiDK]

not much cheaper x 1000 is a lot of money, and $1 will aways become more for the consumer.

again, that's not the PCH problem,
$70 MB can have lower quality audio, lan, 2 memory slots, look bad, and still be enough to handle decent overclocking... I paid $50-60 for my OC friendly (with a bios full of OC options, thanks Gigabyte, and they used that to their advantage with OC being advertised on the box) G31 board 5 years ago.

their current designs probably have some room for OC,
if they had OC (manual multiplier settings) enabled H81/B85 for a longer period they could probably optimize their MB designs and marketing around that, giving you lower cost OC instead of having 300 slots, a huge PCB and shiny components.

The H81 is not released yet it seems. And the B85 board in mention:

Supports Intel® K Series unlock CPU
Up to 95W Thermal Design Power support

I think it speaks for itself.

 

[CakeMonster]

These chipsets were never advertised to have the feature in the first place. I don't like it but lets get some perspective with the whining here.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

This is the easy question.

The answer is: yes, absolutely.

There was NOTHING forbidding the companies from making OCable motherboards with those chipsets.

It was perfectly legitimate, and then customers buy a product based on what it legitimately does . . .



Whether they 'intended' it to work or not is irrelevant.

Better example would be a car that comes with 40 more hp stock than anticipated. People review it and realize that it's pretty close to the 'sport' model that costs much more. People rush out to buy car based on reports of how wonderful it is. The car manufacturer realizes they made a mistake and so they next time the car is brought in for service, they detune the engine to bring it back in line with what they originally intended.

The reality is that it is Intel who are standing in the front line, and if there is a big media storm about it and/or a big fuss about it, it is likely that Intel will get the flak for it.
Intel are taking what is possibly a big risk, if they retrospectively software update this (e.g. windows update), as it could put LOTS of people off the Intel brand, for a very long time.
Which could make it even harder for them to break into new markets, such as phones.

In the old days, you could buy the cheapest Intel chip, with the cheapest motherboard, and overclock to your delight.

Now you have to buy the most expensive Intel cpu, with the most expensive motherboard, while putting up with a poor quality TIM (usually worsens overclocking results), in order to overclock now. It is getting really, really silly.

I think Intel don't realise that such messing about with the overclocking people, has repercussions across a big segment of the market, because they are often computer geeks (etc), who influence the buying decisions of many businesses and users, and in some cases write influential articles in various places.
Some are so keen, they even write stuff like this on forums, but NOT me, not me never (joke, or am I ?).

 

[R0H1T]

Your ISP and cell provider also lowers your service speed/abilities to keep quality up.

Did you consider AMDs (forced) update to Phenom CPUs with a TLB bug with heavy performance panalties for the same? Or did you consider that a bug fix?

The B/H platform is not valdated for overclocking, its not tested and the platform its on may not be capable of substaining it. Meaning the consumer might get a bad experience. And this is essentially why Intel went into the mobo business in the first place. But I am unaware if you are old enough or able to remember that far back.

You're still going around with this ridiculous argument ? As fas as Intel is concerned even OC an unlocked K chip will void your warranty, it also voids the board's warranty IIRC, so why do they sell & advertise their high end components as OC friendly ~ to scam the consumers ? It has nothing to do with validation & whatever else you're saying but rather they(Intel) want the cake & get to it too, I mean how greedy can a corp get (insert here any fruity company or better still those oil firms)

 

[AtenRa]

This is an Intel message to motherboard manufacturers,
"You cannot differentiate your products unless we tell you so."



This is an Intel message to OverClockers,
"You will only spend what WE want you to spend in order to OC(K series + Z boards)."That actually started with the SB release.


Thank you Intel but I will pass, there are more oranges to choose from

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

How do you interpret the

Do you interpret it as giving users any choice?

I'm not sure I fully understand your question.

If Intel want to make changes to the existing processor line(s), and/or motherboard chipsets, which have not been sold yet, then I think that is fine.

But to retrospectively alter something which has already gone out to customers, who may know nothing about the controversy between motherboard makers and Intel.
E.g. By windows update patching the chip, so the existing 4770K's overclock, suddenly and permanently disappears, until the user forks out another $150..$200 for a new motherboard, is somewhat outrageous.

What if the next windows update from Microsoft, freezes your computer, and says "I will not continue, until you either agree to me permanently disabling all overclocking on this computer, or you immediately pay $200 to Intel". Would everyone be ok with this ?
Or would it be called daylight robbery ?

 

[SPBHM]

The H81 is not released yet it seems. And the B85 board in mention:

I think it speaks for itself.

Exactly, thanks for supporting my argument!

UP to 95W, I'm sure the 4670K with the IGP off is much lower than that, = OC room, it's ugly and without a lot of slots, but can handle up to 4.8GHz for cheap, to bad Intel is going to block this.


H81 is coming soon, obviously ECS have them ready to go, Intel is probably holding until they release i3 haswell in one month or so... IF Intel didn't lock the multiplier adjustment we would have $50 OC boards again soon :|

These chipsets were never advertised to have the feature in the first place. I don't like it but lets get some perspective with the whining here.

as far as I can remember Intel didn't advertised OC for G31, H55?
anyway, both were extremely cheap, used in cheap motherboard and could overclock really well.
until now the same could be said for the B85... but things will change.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Like the $50 AMD OC boards that catch on fire, good times would have been ahead.

 

[SPBHM]

Like the $50 AMD OC boards that catch on fire, good times would have been ahead.

if you overclock some Athlon II X2 or whatever CPUs they sell with comparable power usage... cheap boards are sufficient...

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Obviously Haswell is nowhere near as inefficient or power hungry as Piledriver, however you can't even put a stock 125w chip into a 95w board can you? The boards bios generally don't accept them right?

 

[SPBHM]

Obviously Haswell is nowhere near as inefficient or power hungry as Piledriver, however you can't even put a stock 125w chip into a 95w board can you?

Haswell is not comparable to AMD CPUs in terms of power requirements, so it's irrelevant to say you can't overclock some 95-125w+ FX with a cheap MB.

but there is no easy answer, the ugly ECS board up there have specs for "up to 95" when the 4670K with the IGP off is lower than 84 :whiste: (maybe something like 70-75?), even if you can't do 5GHz, I'm sure there is some speed to be gained, even if only 500MHz, it's already a gain, you can do the test, go for the lowest possible voltage on your 4670K and lock all cores to 4GHz to see what's is the power usage difference over stock (while also loading the IGP at the same time, vs no IGP for the OC) or something

also, I remember some brave users with 125w PIIs on 95W boards, I can also talk from my experience of using a 105w TDP Xeon on a 95W G31 board while overclocking it by 40%, I can tell you that being limited by power delivery was not as bad as being 100% locked by not having the ability to change the necessary settings.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Exactly, thanks for supporting my argument!

UP to 95W, I'm sure the 4670K with the IGP off is much lower than that, = OC room, it's ugly and without a lot of slots, but can handle up to 4.8GHz for cheap, to bad Intel is going to block this.

Did I support your argument? How much power will a 4.8Ghz HW draw? How much overhead is there even in the 95W? That board looks olike it will fail quite fast due to overheating VRMs with OCing. Its nothing but a gimmick from ECS to make you buy a crappy board to plug in your 225$+ CPU in. Only to sell you another when you ruin the board and maybe other components.

And as soon as you make proper H81/B85/H87 boards. Then you are quickly at the 120$ vs 130$. And not 50$ vs 130$ that you believe in. Its simply a shortcut to cut down quality from the mobo makers. And then use it as a PR leveage to sell more boards than the others. Nothing else.

 

[cytg111]

Pushing an microcode update for stability and security : Fine, thanks for that
Pushing an microcode update for marketing and profit : Demo in the streets setting stuff on fire, singing : We're not gonna take it No, we ain't gonna take it We're not gonna take it anymore ........ drum drum drum

 

[SPBHM]

Did I support your argument? How much power will a 4.8Ghz HW draw? How much overhead is there even in the 95W? That board looks olike it will fail quite fast due to overheating VRMs with OCing.

I have news for you, between stock and 4.8GHz you can find a "sweet spot" for that motherboard, at a speed higher than stock.

And as soon as you make proper H81/B85/H87 boards. Then you are quickly at the 120$ vs 130$. And not 50$ vs 130$ that you believe in. Its simply a shortcut to cut down quality from the mobo makers. And then use it as a PR leveage to sell more boards than the others. Nothing else.

you can cut costs in many different ways, lower cost chipset, lower cost audio, less ports in general, simpler PCB, and still have something decent enough for some OC... like it was with some H55, G31, G41 boards a few years back...

 

[AtenRa]

I have news for you, between stock and 4.8GHz you can find a "sweat spot" for that motherboard, at a speed higher than stock.

Yeap, you dont have to OC to 4.8GHz, but even at 4 or 4.2GHz it will be fine for someone that want to have more performance/$

 

[Idontcare]

I have news for you, between stock and 4.8GHz you can find a "sweet spot" for that motherboard, at a speed higher than stock.

Sweat and electronics don't mix well, I recommend finding a sweet spot instead

(unless your mobo actually does happen to have a sweat spot, then I recommend a nice deodorizing cleaning solution of vinegar and water )

 

[BallaTheFeared]

It wasn't Intel's intention to OC on these boards, it's part of their product segmentation. The fact that mobo manufactures tried to go around Intel is pretty shameless, and as such they should bare the burden of appeasing any affected customers with a proper z87 motherboard.

The idea of buying a $240/340 cpu and coupling it with a $50 garbage bin board to overclock isn't something I would personally consider.

also, I remember some brave users with 125w PIIs on 95W boards, I can also talk from my experience of using a 105w TDP Xeon on a 95W G31 board while overclocking it by 40%, I can tell you that being limited by power delivery was not as bad as being 100% locked by not having the ability to change the necessary settings.

I killed 3 4+1 AMD boards with a 965, and 1 8+2 board with a 1090T popping the vrms while overclocking.

You aren't limited to no overclocking, you just need to purchase the proper motherboard. Just like you need to purchase the proper cpu in the first place, the two go hand in hand there is no issue here.

This seems to be an issue for the crowd that doesn't typically buy Intel products in the first place. People who would probably buy a costly CPU and couple it with a generic no frills motherboard that will pop on them six times and cost them $100 in RMA shipping, but at the end of the day they can tell everyone what a great "value" it is.

 

[SPBHM]

Sweat and electronics don't mix well, I recommend finding a sweet spot instead

(unless your mobo actually does happen to have a sweat spot, then I recommend a nice deodorizing cleaning solution of vinegar and water )

overclocking with cheap VRMs can cause some extra sweat!

It wasn't Intel's intention to OC on these boards, it's part of their product segmentation. The fact that mobo manufactures tried to go around Intel is pretty shameless, and as such they should bare the burden of appeasing any affected customers with a proper z87 motherboard.

The idea of buying a $240/340 cpu and coupling it with a $50 garbage bin board to overclock isn't something I would personally consider.

the fact remains, it was possible until now, and Intel is going to lock with some bios update,

you don't need to buy the cheapest possible MB, you could buy something in between, but I like to have more options, always.

still, if the price difference between the Z and H MB is $50, it can be the difference of buying a 4670K and running at 4-4.2GHz with a B85-H81 MB or a 4430 with Z87 and being locked at 3-3.2GHz for the same money.

I killed 3 4+1 AMD boards with a 965, and 1 8+2 board with a 1090T popping the vrms while overclocking.

You aren't limited to no overclocking, you just need to purchase the proper motherboard. Just like you need to purchase the proper cpu in the first place, the two go hand in hand there is no issue here.

This seems to be an issue for the crowd that doesn't typically buy Intel products in the first place. People who would probably buy a costly CPU and couple it with a generic no frills motherboard that will pop on them six times and cost them $100 in RMA shipping, but at the end of the day they can tell everyone what a great "value" it is.

I never had to RMA a motherboard, I've been using cheap motherboards for years... the thing is, you can kill a motherboard with excessive overclocking, that's why you need to be more careful when you have a more basic motherboard, perhaps you could run a PII X4 at 3.5GHz with a cheap motherboard, but not at 4.1GHz, and that can be the difference between having a great experience and great performance per $ and killing your hardware...

I'm sure you could run the 4670K at 4.2GHz with cheap motherboards, keep the voltage low enough, and don't run P95 24/7, keep a fan near the VRMs and have fun (and don't update your bios or something)

 

[BallaTheFeared]

the fact remains, it was possible until now, and Intel is going to lock with some bios update,

you don't need to buy the cheapest possible MB, you could buy something in between, but I like to have more options, always.

still, if the price difference between the Z and H MB is $50, it can be the difference of buying a 4670K and running at 4-4.2GHz with a B85-H81 MB or a 4430 with Z87 and being locked at 3-3.2GHz for the same money.

Yes the fact does remain, the fact that Intel did not offer overclocking on non z87 motherboards... Which is the only fact that matters.

Cheapest z87 is already sub $100, how much lower were you hoping to go but stay above $50 and still feel the need to post about it?

Why is someone buying an overclocking $240 CPU and putting it in a $50 motherboard? What exactly is the use case for such a purchase?

I never had to RMA a motherboard, I've been using cheap motherboards for years... the thing is, you can kill a motherboard with excessive overclocking, that's why you need to be more careful when you have a more basic motherboard, perhaps you could run a PII X4 at 3.5GHz with a cheap motherboard, but not at 4.1GHz, and that can be the difference between having a great experience and great performance per $ and killing your hardware...

I'm sure you could run the 4670K at 4.2GHz with cheap motherboards, keep the voltage low enough, and don't run P95 24/7, keep a fan near the VRMs and have fun (and don't update your bios or something)

I also killed a P67 UD4, endless boot cycle just as the chipset recall went down :|

Or you could have gotten an i5-4670k and $180 quality motherboard with $80 off :hmm:

 

[Idontcare]

Ok, maybe it IS legal.

But I doubt some/many customers will see it that way.

If any of my Intel computers, were messed about with by Intel (via an internet update), and were significantly worsened as a result afterwards, I would be VERY annoyed with Intel.

I can see both sides to the argument.

Intel has a business case to make, be it limiting their liability or maximizing their profitability, either way there are literally thousands of people whose livelihoods and jobs depend on Intel making the tough decisions needed to ensure the cash flow is healthy enough to keep paying those folks their salaries so they in turn can keep paying their mortgage and buy food and send their kids to school and pay taxes, etc.

On the other side, my absolute favorite rig build of all time was my dual-550MHz Celeron machine using the Abit BP6 mobo.

Processors supported by the BP6 in SMP configuration were the PPGA Socket 370 Celeron processors (300-533 MHz).

Intel never intended the Celeron to be able to operate in SMP, and later generation Celerons had their SMP interface disabled, restricting the feature to the higher-end Pentium 3 and Xeon product lines.

So not only were you buying the dirt-cheap CPU version from Intel (their Celeron line), you were (1) overclocking them from 333MHz to 550MHz (w00t!), and (2) putting them into a silly cheap dual-socket mobo and running them in SMP like a boss!

Now then, Intel obviously took measures to prevent this from happening again but for a brief period in time enthusiasts could build quite the powerful and cheap box.

So I have to ask myself, how would I have felt in 1999 if Intel reached out through Microsoft with a microcode "update for security" that totally borked my BP6 duallie and operationally made it a single-socket mobo running at near-stock clockspeeds?

I'd be pissed. Disgusted and pissed.

So I can understand the emotional response that Intel is getting from this total dick move on their part.

It is all about the upsell. Intel really is no different than your local car dealership when it comes to their marketing and sales strategies.

Get your enthusiasts to pay a premium for the "K" chip (upsell #1), then make them pay a premium to get the right chipset as needed to actually use the unlocked features of your CPU (upsell #2), and don't forget to lay it on heavy and thick that they better buy that "extended warranty" performance tuning plan (upsell #3).

Upsell, upsell, upsell.

If your livelihood depends on Intel having a healthy robust fiscal outlook then you are pleased to see Intel doing what it needs to ensure you have continued job security, that is a very natural and understandable human desire. I've been there (not at Intel, but at others) and it sucked to see my management not minding the shop well enough to safeguard the financial future of employees like myself.

But for the rest of the consumer market, this stuff just creates friction as it pits consumers against the seller in an adversarial way and the history of commerce shows this always, always, results in a detrimental outcome for the business that is waging war on its customer.

Intel needs to find ways to add value to customers, not find ways to reduce or minimize the value it is adding to its customers. This move, while justified, is an act of war on its own customers and those are the kind of war wounds that people remember for a long long time.