VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,587
- 10,225
- 126
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,587
- 10,225
- 126
Again, pre-Sandy Bridge, were there any chipsets which were designed to support overclocking? This idea, that overclocking is not something which you just DO, running things OUT OF SPEC, but instead requires PERMISSION from the mfg, is a foreign idea to me.
To me, overclocking is just something that you do because YOU CAN, who cares about specifications.
Do I need Intel's PERMISSION to run my P35 chipset at 400FSB? Of course not.
Yes, BEFORE they are sold onto the market, NOT AFTER. After that, the product is owned by the customer. Any changes to that product, not specifically authorized by that customer (owner) of the product, would be considered "hacking", otherwise known as "unauthorized access".
I think Intel's actions, should they go through with them, would be considered a violation of the computer abuse and misuse act, in that Intel is gaining "unauthorized access" to my PC (should I own a Haswell rig). Which is a FELONY.
Can you find in Intel's white papers where it says unapproved features will be removed at Intel's behest?
cytg111
Lifer
- Mar 17, 2008
- 26,190
- 15,600
- 136
Yeah Intel would have a bigger mess on its hands if some manufacturer figured out how to overclock non-k cpus. The price difference btwn h87/z87 isn't that big.
Remember when you can overclock whatever the hell you wanted and when chipsets were all the same on the same socket and nobody charged you for additional features? I do.
People shouldn't be in an uproar, because this isn't any less dumb than the rest of it..
- All Intel quads have hyperthreading. The core itself wouldn't pass if hyperthreading didn't work.
- Lack of virtualization features on K-series chips
- K-series chips are no different than any other chips
- All of the chipsets are exactly the same
This all has to do with Intel dividing their lineup in such a way to create a variety of products to give the illusion of consumer choice. The reality is that the silicon is all the same, but it's not worth having a slew of truly different chips when you can just artificially limit the couple that you do make and slot them into certain price points.
Wake up, folks. Did it really take them removing H-series chipset overclocking for people to see what's going on? I thought this was Anandtech...
cytg111
Lifer
- Mar 17, 2008
- 26,190
- 15,600
- 136
I seriously do not understand what all that has to do with the context of this thread.
See below
Differentiation among the few blocks of silicon you've got to offer. This is no different
cytg111
Lifer
- Mar 17, 2008
- 26,190
- 15,600
- 136
Boiled down, 101, this is my property, if you trespass, i might just shoot you in the face. In this case Intel is trespassing.
Ohhhhhh how will I ever continue?
Newegg was forcing me to buy a $180 board and get $80 off an i5-4670k, but what I really want, what I need, what I desire, is a $60 non overclocking board to overclock on with it's feature deprived single PCIe lane awesomeness :awe:
how stupid is Intel for blocking something only 3 people care! or Asrock, ECS, Biostar, Gigabyte, Asus and others for releasing a bios with features only 3 people care (asrock and ECS even making some noise about it), you should tell them they are wasting their time!
ohhhh, everybody have access to newegg deals (and they never change), everybody should burn money with features they don't care about like more than one PCIE 3.0 slot with 16 lanes, just because they want to set a higher multiplier manually, thank you Intel for making the choice for us, until now we could buy b85 boards and overclock, but that was a bad option I'm sure, thanks for locking it for us...
Ohhh the $20, it broke me, how will I ever go on having to spend $20 more and getting more features like overclocking for my $240/340 CPU?
Woe is me, this is a huge 7 page issue.
Woe is me, this is a huge 7 page issue.
I was far less industrious about it. My solution was to buy them from atacom.com who at the time would pre-bin "guaranteed" OC'able Celerons for a small premium (it was all of maybe an extra $5 or $10 to get a guaranteed 300->504 or 333->550 OC'able Celeron from them).
So my dualie BP6 was a dual-550MHz rig.
Yep, I managed to skip both of those phases of OC'ing too.
Once you got a taste of what it was like to not have your rig grind to a useless halt just because a background task like AV scanning or file-copying was going on, it was dreamy and I was never able to go back to a single-core rig again.
I refused to retire my BP6 until I was able to buy the AMD equivalent (ASUS A7M266-D) with dual Athlon MP 1600+ chips (talk about an upgrade! :twisted
.Thankfully back then you didn't have to worry about this stuff like today where you can have your PC retroactively dumbed down.
Intel isn't alone in doing stuff like this though. In my business I use a software program called "Metatrader 4" which is frequently and routinely updated by its owner MetaQuotes. At one point they added a feature that was an absolute to-die-for feature because it enabled the backtesting program to use tick-by-tick data from real historical market data.
Well that didn't sit too well with the brokers who generate the tick data, it was a huge liability for them. So suddenly in the middle of the night out went a "stability bug patch" that upgraded everyone's MT4 software that was connected to the internet at the time and, viola, that lovely helpful feature was no longer anywhere to be found.
The only way people were able to keep Metaquotes from removing the feature was they kept (and still do to this day) their "fully featured" version of the software on a computer that doesn't allow the MT4 to connect to the internet.
It was (and still is) as anti-consumer as it gets because the feature was removed solely (and silently) for the benefit of the brokers at the expense of the broker's customers.
What Intel is doing is not for the customer's benefit, but I don't see it as criminal or a felony either. Far worse anti-consumer abuses abound in the marketplace that are not viewed as actionable, so I doubt Intel is worried about the backlash over this activity either.
7 pages thread for something no one cares right?
again the difference can be bigger than $20 (even more outside the US), someone in 1 month could buy a cheap h81+i3 combo, and in 6 months decide to grab a 4670K (be it on regular price, some great deal, used, whatever), and do some OC without a new MB, or they could direct the $20-50 they saved for something else, which looks like a great thing to do considering they could be loosing absolutely nothing, if their usage involves a single VGA, 2 memory sticks and some 500MHz OC.
but hey, no one cares right? fortunately Intel can guide us to the Z+K combination and protect us from the sin of changing multipliers with a unlocked CPU on motherboards with less expensive PCHs!
having options like that is to confusing!
ohhh D:
I've thought about this a bit more....
I'll concede that the damage is already done. Now I personally believe the fault lies with motherboard manufacturers, but i'm starting to agree that those who already purchased a K CPU alongside one of these motherboards should retain that benefit. If a motherboard producer did something shady to allow non-Z overclocking, that doesn't involve the consumer. Stop the problem at the source instead of cutting a consumer off, why not?
How to fix the problem becomes delicate at that point - couldn't intel merely consult with the motherboard manufacturers and basically say, "Hey stop!"? Why not do that instead. After all, these firms were using workarounds to bypass intel's intended limitations. This had nothing to do with end-users who purchased these boards.
I'll concede that the damage is already done. Now I personally believe the fault lies with motherboard manufacturers, but i'm starting to agree that those who already purchased a K CPU alongside one of these motherboards should retain that benefit. If a motherboard producer did something shady to allow non-Z overclocking, that doesn't involve the consumer. Stop the problem at the source instead of cutting a consumer off, why not?
How to fix the problem becomes delicate at that point - couldn't intel merely consult with the motherboard manufacturers and basically say, "Hey stop!"? Why not do that instead. After all, these firms were using workarounds to bypass intel's intended limitations. This had nothing to do with end-users who purchased these boards.
I think the motherboard producer should upgrade anyone who purchased a non z87 board that was advertized as overclockable with a z87 board.
It's surely not Intel's fault, their stance and guidelines are quite clear. That leaves either the customer or the manufacturer, and in this case, I'd say the blame and appeasement rests solely on the manufacturers shoulders.
I don't think it's a big issue for them either, the amount of people buying $60 motherboards and $240/340 CPUs can't be very high.
they did "the same" for decades, Intel chipsets which were not supposed to be used with some newer CPUs/sockets, chipsets running totally out of spec, go take a look on the Asrock motherboards list for s775 (or their p67 1156 MB), you will find a lot of great examples, or the Dual Celeron stuff, 440BX with Tualatin, whatever...
OC on 1155 with non P/Z chipsets never happened for a reason, there was some lock working properly, the same didn't happen with 1150, I don't blame Asrock and others for enabling something with no real reason not to work.
Intel was smart enough to kill bclk OC, to only allow OC with certain chipsets, to lock multipliers, to kill turbo OC , to stop using soldered IHS with new hardware, but the way they are handling this is much more obvious... b85-h87 are currently working perfectly fine for overclocking... and this will only change because of microcode update intended to reduce the current functionality of some motherboard.
no they shouldn't they sold B85, H87, which were perfectly usable for overclocking, Intel is deciding now to kill that with some stupid update, Intel should be blamed.
again, if it's not a a big issue, if no one cares, why is Intel even doing something? why the MB companies were advertising and celebrating non Z OC? and working on their bios code to enable the option to be used?!
thankfully people are different and will see benefits, appeal in something you won't... but it doesn't change the problem here, Intel is disabling something from their cheaper PCHs which currently works, to force you to pay more if you want to change the multiplier while using your unlocked CPU.
SOFTengCOMPelec
Platinum Member
- May 9, 2013
- 2,417
- 75
- 91
I was far less industrious about it. My solution was to buy them from atacom.com who at the time would pre-bin "guaranteed" OC'able Celerons for a small premium (it was all of maybe an extra $5 or $10 to get a guaranteed 300->504 or 333->550 OC'able Celeron from them).
So my dualie BP6 was a dual-550MHz rig.
Yep, I managed to skip both of those phases of OC'ing too.
Once you got a taste of what it was like to not have your rig grind to a useless halt just because a background task like AV scanning or file-copying was going on, it was dreamy and I was never able to go back to a single-core rig again.
I refused to retire my BP6 until I was able to buy the AMD equivalent (ASUS A7M266-D) with dual Athlon MP 1600+ chips (talk about an upgrade! :twisted
Thankfully back then you didn't have to worry about this stuff like today where you can have your PC retroactively dumbed down.
I found it great fun sorting out how far the overclocking would go on each chip.
It was a bit like getting a surprise birthday present, and excitedly one opens up the box and tests, to find out how fast it can go, 450, 500, 519 MHz yay!.
I did go back to single core, for quite a while, because the speed improvement on a single core was potentially huge.
And also because most software I run or write was single core at the time.
(On the BP6 I could test 2 programs at the same time, or run 1 and still use the computer without hindrance). (Obviously multi computer still works, even if they are single core only).
The Windows version had moved on (I think), and my compiler/RAD needed the later windows version (from memory), so I was kind of pushed into using the modern computers (at the time).
I liked to game (then), and NT and gaming are a match NOT made in heaven!
Once you get to quad core, using ALL the cores gives a huge speed improvement to programs (if the program can readily exploit the extra cores), but with dual core, it is harder to justify the work involved, but still worth it.
Your MT4 story does not surprise me.
I've had a number of (usually freeware) programs which have turned "NASTY" after automatically updating (or even manually updating) to the latest version.
E.g. They have moved from being "clean" to having "nag messages", or much more intrusive adverts, or removed important features (not necessarily maliciously, but for other reasons).
So a number of times, I've rolled back to the older version, and either disabled automatic updates, or refused, every few weeks (or whatever) the pop up message saying "found a newer version, update ?" comes up.
By using a stored older copy, or googling and finding an older version.
Sadly what sometimes happens is that 3.1 of something works just great, and is reasonably bug free.
Later, they bring out 4.1, it is a bit better feature wise, but has a huge number of bugs, which they never seem to really sort out, so it's much easier to use 3.1, and cope with the odd new feature missing, than cope with a crashy/buggy unusable program.
-------------------------------
Intels combination of making it much more expensive to overclock, and at the same time less lucrative as the generations skip by (e.g. Soldered TIM, downgraded to not soldered TIM). Is/has reduced the overclocking community, to a smaller bunch of die hard overclockers.
Nothing to do with Intels overclocking changes, you can get or make a computer, with a rather good turn of speed, fairly cheaply (without overclocking), so overclocking is a lot less necessary or called for these days.
I think the stabilty checking of overclocks has become much harder, as cpus became more and more complicated.
Back in the days of the BP6, I remember all I needed to do was run the Celeron in a single socket motherboard (for initial testing), and play Doom (via DOS), at ever increasing MHz clock speed.
AT some speed e.g. 514 MHz, it would refuse to play DOOM, e.g. Crash or something.
I would then choose a safe overclock, e.g. 504 MHz, and use that.
I can't remember if I used Prime95 in those days, to stress test the cpu, to confirm the overclock.
But I probably did.
Because it was dual socket, there was not the need to worry about extensively max HEAT testing overclocks, because the chips were separately heatsinked.
Last edited:
Intel does not release a microcode for 3 people. They releasing the update means that this affects lots of people.
The chipsets did not run out of specs. As someone said this is a market segmentation textbook example.
What Intel is doing now with the downgrade microcode is just the inverse of what they tried in the past with software upgradeable CPUs:
The hardware is capable but a software limitation is imposed. This applies to chipsets. Intel could sell H87/B85 with OC unlocked. The main difference with the chipsets case is that Intel is imposing now a software limitation at posteriori.
Very relevant that the article was almost predicting what we are discussing today:
My beat is that in near future Intel will release a single chipset/CPU and will segment via software.
Want to unlock turbo? Pay
Want to unlock OC? Pay
Want to unlock hyper-threading? Pay
Want to unlock iGPU? Pay
Want to unlock big cache? Pay
Want to unlock cores? Pay
Your opinion?
What Intel is doing now with the downgrade microcode is just the inverse of what they tried in the past with software upgradeable CPUs:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...-on-software-upgraded-sandy-bridge-processors
The hardware is capable but a software limitation is imposed. This applies to chipsets. Intel could sell H87/B85 with OC unlocked. The main difference with the chipsets case is that Intel is imposing now a software limitation at posteriori.
Very relevant that the article was almost predicting what we are discussing today:
Very close to this chipset blocking, true?
My beat is that in near future Intel will release a single chipset/CPU and will segment via software.
Want to unlock turbo? Pay
Want to unlock OC? Pay
Want to unlock hyper-threading? Pay
Want to unlock iGPU? Pay
Want to unlock big cache? Pay
Want to unlock cores? Pay
Your opinion?
Last edited:
cytg111
Lifer
- Mar 17, 2008
- 26,190
- 15,600
- 136
- Fair.
But retroactively screwing me in the butt with nu lubricant? Not fair.
Slip loose the dogs of war
SOFTengCOMPelec
Platinum Member
- May 9, 2013
- 2,417
- 75
- 91
There were complaints and rumours about this sort of stuff, some 10 or even 20 years, before microprocessors were even invented.
E.g. IBM mainframes
(Story told from memory, so might have the odd inaccuracy in it, or more, all prices made up, as I forgot the actual ones, gist of prices correct though).
You had to pay a fortune to upgrade (double) the ram size.
But people were very annoyed, because for that small fortune, all they basically did was open up the huge machine, flip a (secret) switch, and job done, ram sized doubled.
Very approximate technical explanation
They used core memory back then (a sort of magnetic ram like memory, using tiny magnetic elements, i.e. cores).
The core thing was a sort of cube (box), with thousands of tiny magnetic cores, each one storing a phenominal 1 bit of ram each.
(Ironically, core memory was NON-VOLATILE, so me calling it ram is a bit confusing, but it was the ram of that time in history).
It was NOT economically viable to create a new core memory, which happened to be exactly half the normal size, as it would have cost a lot to design, tool up and make a separate half capacity core, so it was cheaper to just have a switch, which enabled or disabled the "double" capacity.
The whole thing was a marketing ploy.
The full memoried mainframe was a certain price, call it $600,000.
By selling the half memory mainframe at $500,000, it made the mainframe more enticing for business to buy it.
But you needed the full memory to actually do stuff with the mainframe, so people were soon forced to pay $115,000 to upgrade the memory.
Hence IBM increased the sales of their mainframes, by people mistakenly buying the cheaper one, and then having to pay to upgrade it to the big one.
So Intel is not trying anything new here.
On the other hand, when was the last time you bought an IBM cpu for your computer, or RAM, or even a complete IBM computer PC, in the last 5 years ?
Intel could be going down the same path.
--------------------------------------------------
The same sort of thing is done today, with other computer things.
E.g. A Laser Colour/color printer, complete with full capacity toners (all colours) may REALLY cost $1000.
But at $1,000 few people would buy any.
So they sell it at $399, complete with "STARTER" toner cartridges.
The starter toner cartridges are only good for say 500 pages, so most users soon run out and have to buy the proper FULL capacity toner cartridges, with a 3,000 page life each.
Full toner cartridges are $150 each.
So the real cost of the colour laser is:
Colour laser $399
4 colour cartriges (3 primary colours + 1 Black) 4 x $150
Actual cost is about $1000.
Projectors (for computers) have a similar model, using the bulbs, to force a much higher item price, in real terms.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 400
Facebook
Twitter