One downside of Intel canning BCLK OC on SKL

[VirtualLarry]

I know that for bang-for-buck budget builds for people, I tend to spec towards G3258 combo deals (when available), and with SKL BCLK OC, assuming that it was going to show up in H110 boards eventually, it would have made a really nice budget OC solution, with a SKL Celeron / Pentium CPU.

There is a class of customers, to whom there is a relatively fixed budget ceiling. For those people, cutting off the availability of cheap budget clockers, doesn't mean that those customers got higher on Intel's product stack - it means that they look somewhere else, which is a kind of code speak for "switching to AMD".

I know that now, I'm going to be steering my budget customers towards cheaper AMD APUs, and avoiding SKL.

Edit: To say nothing of SKL's seriously bugged video drivers, basically unsuitable for even desktop tasks. The superiority of AMD's APU drivers for Windows should not be underestimated.

 

[Ken g6]

with SKL BCLK OC, assuming that it was going to show up in H110 boards eventually

I don't think that was ever a reasonable assumption.

There is a class of customers, to whom there is a relatively fixed budget ceiling. For those people, cutting off the availability of cheap budget clockers, doesn't mean that those customers got higher on Intel's product stack - it means that they look somewhere else, which is a kind of code speak for "switching to AMD".

It's hard for even an overclocked AMD APU to match a stock Skylake i3...

Edit: To say nothing of SKL's seriously bugged video drivers, basically unsuitable for even desktop tasks. The superiority of AMD's APU drivers for Windows should not be underestimated.

...Except maybe for the graphics.

 

[Conroe]

I've played games, used two monitors and not had problems with 530. Other than gamming I can't tell a difference from my GTX 970.

The FX 6300 seems to be AMD's top seller at $100. I don't see it being a better choice than a $130 i3 6300. You need to spend at least 30 on a HSF to overclock it and it's still slower.

 

[VirtualLarry]

AMD AMD A8 7650K Kaveri Quad-Core 3.3 GHz Socket FM2+ 95W AD765KXBJABOX Desktop Processor Radeon R7 series
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113391&ignorebbr=1

Pros: Overclocked out-of-the-box to 4.3 ghz stable...using stock cooling and stock voltage. Paired with Gigabyte GA-F2A68HM-H motherboard and G.Skill 2400 mhz memory for a micro ATX budget gaming build.

My 3D Mark 2013 Firestrike score is 1599 with the CPU @ 4.3 ghz; Ram @ 2400 mhz; GPU @ 900 / 1200 Mhz.

That's basically what I'm talking about, in terms of "budget OC value". For $90, that doesn't seem so bad.

 

[Dufus]

Doesn't seem bad at all for that price.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Why is it presumed that customers want an overclock? Are they aware that it voids the warranty? (Usually.)

I know it offends the enthusiasts to point this out, but like 99.9% of the boxes out there are running at stock speeds. And in that context, stock SKL Pentium/i3 pwns.

 

[SPBHM]

that 7650K looks like a good CPU+IGP, with Intel blocking OC the AMD CPUs are looking more interesting again.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Why is it presumed that customers want an overclock? Are they aware that it voids the warranty? (Usually.)

I know it offends the enthusiasts to point this out, but like 99.9% of the boxes out there are running at stock speeds. And in that context, stock SKL Pentium/i3 pwns.

Because OC gives you WAY MORE "bang for buck"? And most Facebook users, aren't calculation-critical, but they could use 30% more frames per second in their CPU-heavy Flash games. If there's free performance, why not?

I would have OCed the two E5200 rigs I sold a few years ago, except for the fact that the mobo didn't have vcore adjustments, only FSB. I could OC the E5200 from 2.5Ghz to 3.0Ghz easily on that board, but it wasn't OCCT / Prime95 stable, without a vcore boost. I'm very picky when it comes to stability.

Edit: Oh, and while I don't warranty the OC itself, I'm willing to warranty the hardware that is OCed, as long as it's OCed and tested by me.

Edit: I might be willing to spec SKL i3-6100 CPUs, if they were closer to $90 USD retail. (Will Intel make a 3.5Ghz i3-6000?)

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the i3 isn't powerful, but $130 for what is a glorified dual-core, is highway robbery. $90-100 for a hypothetical i3-6000 SKL CPU, with HD 510 even maybe, and a 3.4-3.5Ghz clockspeed, would be more along what I think would be a perfect budget CPU. (And even a 4.0Ghz G3258 is equal or faster in ST performance, and that CPU only costs $70, and that if you don't get it in a combo deal. With a combo deal, it's even cheaper.)

 

[superstition]

Now that the Broadwell C 5675C is once again available AMD's APUs have no relevance on the desktop beyond low-budget basic boxes. Their only place to find any relevance is in laptops. Yes, the Broadwell is a bit pricey at $275. But, if you're getting a CPU to game on with integrated graphics (passive small form factor, or something) Iris Pro is so much better it's no contest, and the CPU is so much better if you upgrade to a discreet card. Top it all off with low power draw and the price tag is more worth it.

This situation should change with Zen, especially if AMD manages to make HBM APUs.

The only AMD CPUs with any relevance on the desktop for more serious workloads are overclocked FX chips like the $100 (at Micro Center) 8320E.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Yes, the Broadwell is a bit pricey at $275.

Not sure how that fits in with budget desktop bang-for-buck. Yeah, it's a great CPU, with a great IGP, but ... pricewise, it seems a bit... out of reach?

 

[bystander36]

I know that for bang-for-buck budget builds for people, I tend to spec towards G3258 combo deals (when available), and with SKL BCLK OC, assuming that it was going to show up in H110 boards eventually, it would have made a really nice budget OC solution, with a SKL Celeron / Pentium CPU.

There is a class of customers, to whom there is a relatively fixed budget ceiling. For those people, cutting off the availability of cheap budget clockers, doesn't mean that those customers got higher on Intel's product stack - it means that they look somewhere else, which is a kind of code speak for "switching to AMD".

I know that now, I'm going to be steering my budget customers towards cheaper AMD APUs, and avoiding SKL.

Edit: To say nothing of SKL's seriously bugged video drivers, basically unsuitable for even desktop tasks. The superiority of AMD's APU drivers for Windows should not be underestimated.

If you did not do the same for all previous Intel generations, then this is just a knee-jerk reaction. All they did was put Skylake in the same light as all previous generations of i3's. If you didn't steer everyone to AMD in the past generations, then you shouldn't do so now.

 

[bystander36]

Because OC gives you WAY MORE "bang for buck"? And most Facebook users, aren't calculation-critical, but they could use 30% more frames per second in their CPU-heavy Flash games. If there's free performance, why not?

Because the customer you are selling it to isn't likely going to OC. It's extremely unlikely unless you do it for them.

 

[Arachnotronic]

If you did not do the same for all previous Intel generations, then this is just a knee-jerk reaction. All they did was put Skylake in the same light as all previous generations of i3's. If you didn't steer everyone to AMD in the past generations, then you shouldn't do so now.

yep...

 

[VirtualLarry]

If you did not do the same for all previous Intel generations, then this is just a knee-jerk reaction. All they did was put Skylake in the same light as all previous generations of i3's. If you didn't steer everyone to AMD in the past generations, then you shouldn't do so now.

In the 775 years, I would steer people to the E5200, which is an easy OC from 2.5Ghz to 3.0Ghz (generally effortless, some can do it without a vcore increase), and if they were willing to go a little more hardcore on the OC (and deal with the consequences), then I OCed higher. One of my friends, I hooked him up with an E5200, and OCed to 3.75Ghz, that's a cool 50% OC, much like the Celly 300A would do.

The 775 years were golden for OCing, buying the cheaper chips, and getting them to perform at the clockspeed (though not performance, due to lack of cache) of the higher-priced higher-end CPUs.

 

[ShintaiDK]

So you are going backwards again Larry. Its just the same story isn't it

 

[ShintaiDK]

It's hard for even an overclocked AMD APU to match a stock Skylake i3....

+1 :thumbsup:

 

[VirtualLarry]

So you are going backwards again Larry. Its just the same story isn't it

No, it's Intel, going backwards, and canning overclocking on their cheaper (locked) chips. If Intel was open to "peasant level" overclocking, then I would be open to (purchasing) Intel.

Since they are locking it out, I'm locking them out. At least my future personal builds, and as many of my customer builds as I can. I don't think that very many of my customers will complain, if I tell them that their builds are cheaper.

 

[ShintaiDK]

You should stay with the cheap AM1 builds then. Cheaper is better obviously.

 

[VirtualLarry]

You should stay with the cheap AM1 builds then. Cheaper is better obviously.

It is. For a certain subset of people. Non-enthusiasts, that would rather a cheap (and slower) AM1 rig, and save their money to spend at the casino. Because as long as they have a working PC to get to Facebook, they don't care otherwise.

Edit: To be sure, though, you're the first person to bring up AM1 in this thread. Your use of hyperbole to put down AMD is amazing. I was talking about an overclocked A6-7650K APU, which is a far cry from AM1.

 

[AtenRa]

In the 775 years, I would steer people to the E5200, which is an easy OC from 2.5Ghz to 3.0Ghz (generally effortless, some can do it without a vcore increase), and if they were willing to go a little more hardcore on the OC (and deal with the consequences), then I OCed higher. One of my friends, I hooked him up with an E5200, and OCed to 3.75Ghz, that's a cool 50% OC, much like the Celly 300A would do.

The 775 years were golden for OCing, buying the cheaper chips, and getting them to perform at the clockspeed (though not performance, due to lack of cache) of the higher-priced higher-end CPUs.

Yea, 775 was the golden age of Intel OC. Then they got greedy from SB onward.

It was not only the cheap SKUs, you could buy a 250 euro Core 2 Quad 9450, OC to 3.2GHz only by raising the fsb and you had a 1000 Euro CPU at 1/4 the price.
Same with Socket 1366, Core i7 920 was the last of the Mohicans. Since then you cannot get the same performance of a $1000 Intel CPU by OCing $250 price SKUs.

 

[LTC8K6]

No, it's Intel, going backwards, and canning overclocking on their cheaper (locked) chips. If Intel was open to "peasant level" overclocking, then I would be open to (purchasing) Intel.

Since they are locking it out, I'm locking them out. At least my future personal builds, and as many of my customer builds as I can. I don't think that very many of my customers will complain, if I tell them that their builds are cheaper.

When did Intel officially support/approve the SL bclk overclocking?

Intel gave you the G3258 that you like so much, right?

In the OP, you basically say that you never actually did a SL i3 overclock system, you only say you had it in mind.

So I don't see how Intel went backwards, or changed anything for you.

 

[LTC8K6]

How much power is a 4.3ghz A8-7650K going to use vs a stock i3-6100?

Are you sure it won't declock?

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/9217/OC_575px.png

 

[LTC8K6]

Don't you have to forego using the IGP with the SL bclck overclock anyway?

Doesn't that remove the "budget" aspect?

 

[Vortex6700]

Slow down little dude. Give him time to respond.

Or maybe he is done talking about this and realizes the ethical choice hasn't been intel since they bought the designs for the second microprocessor (4004).

 

[ShintaiDK]

Or maybe he is done talking about this and realizes the ethical choice hasn't been intel since they bought the designs for the second microprocessor (4004).

Utter BS. I assume you are simply misinformed since you claim it. Or just dont understand how a company works.

There is no such thing as an ethical company. AMD, VIA, IBM, ARM etc are all equally "evil".