Signs of Intel segregating their processors into OCable and Stock

[Vesku]

http://www.fudzilla.com/index....=view&id=7255&Itemid=1

So, buy Q6600s while we can?

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Vesku
http://www.fudzilla.com/index....=view&id=7255&Itemid=1

So, buy Q6600s while we can?

Judging by the comments of an Intel employee on the xtremesystems forum, this is absolutely accurate. Apparently LGA1160 Nehalem contains no clock generator on the motherboard so there isn't a "FSB" to increase & overclock the system. Of course the multiplier will be locked so that is not an option either.

It sounds like Bloomfield & LGA1366 will be the only option for overclocking, and the CPU cost of entry will be around ~$400, with the motherboards probably costing around the same as today's X38/X48 mobos. So no more $60 E2160 + $60 IP35-e and outperforming the X6800.

 

[bryanW1995]

blauhung has provided good info in the past, but dmens and others who could just as easily be "in the know" seem to be sceptical of this line of reasoning. While I PERSONALLY wouldn't be surprised to see this come to pass, I am still holding out hope that the mobo-makers figure something out for lga 1160.

btw, I'd be very surprised if lars didn't get his entire article from that thread at XS.

 

[lopri]

As if there was not enough reason to dislike Intel.

 

[toadeater]

Luckily there's no need for Nehalem for most users, and there won't be any time soon.

 

[AmberClad]

I guess I'm in the wait-and-see group.

If the budget OCer CPUs are locked (i.e. the Nehalem equivalent of the E2xxx), then me = *shrug*.
If the mainstream $200-$300 CPUs are locked (i.e. the non-extreme edition chips like the Wolfdales and Penryn Quads), then me = :|.

If AMD manages to get something competitive out by then, I think Intel might change their tune...

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: toadeater
Luckily there's no need for Nehalem for most users, and there won't be any time soon.

This is a big issue for Intel. How do you convince folks to replace their perfectly fine quadcore or dualcore with yet another? It's a tough sell.

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Judging by the comments of an Intel employee on the xtremesystems forum, this is absolutely accurate. Apparently LGA1160 Nehalem contains no clock generator on the motherboard so there isn't a "FSB" to increase & overclock the system. Of course the multiplier will be locked so that is not an option either.

It sounds like Bloomfield & LGA1366 will be the only option for overclocking, and the CPU cost of entry will be around ~$400, with the motherboards probably costing around the same as today's X38/X48 mobos. So no more $60 E2160 + $60 IP35-e and outperforming the X6800.

I've got a couple issue with Blauhung's comments lately...once he added "prices" to his opinion my confidence declined considerably. Blauhung is either a fab worker, an IC designer, or a marketing/sales person...you aren't all three but his opinions on Intel's Nehalem strategy wander across all three job functions and that doesn't happen in real life.

So the guy is making up stuff as he goes along in at least one of these three areas (fab timings of the chips, capabilities of the varying chips, or the targeted price sku's) unless he is fairly high-up in management such that he is exposed to the bigger picture and strategy from the 50k-ft perspective in which case it would extremely rare for such a person to risk their career on chances of mis-posting some info on a forum that was not supposed to be made public...

Those types of folks tend to be the lurkers and not so much the talkers. (PM...)

I was a Blauhung believer until he put that "$400" foot in his mouth, if it comes true it won't be because he knows anything about it at this point in time unless he is part of the sales division in which case it is very unlikely you can believe any of the technical talking points he's put out there in the past. IMO.

 

[Phynaz]

I once read an article on why it would be impossile to lock a cpu clock.

This was around Pentium 1 days, I'm going to see if I can find it again.

 

[magreen]

IDC, that's some damn smart analysis right there. :thumbsup:

 

[n7]

I don't like speculation either per say, but it kinda looks like Intel hates us?

Minimum $600-700 + DDR3 to get an overclockable enthusiast system?

They can go eff themselves if so.

 

[MarcVenice]

Why would they want to do this? The overclockers are only a small margin in their business, but look at all the buzz the overclockers generate, because those are usually the enthusiasts who will spread the word about a awesome CPU. I doubt intel loses a lot of money because some people buy a $60 abit ip35-e and a $70 e2160 and overclock it to e8400 speeds, although they could afford a e8400 if they had to.

So if those assumptions are correct, this is pure stupidity from a marketing point of view.

 

[Foxery]

Officially, Intel has never "supported" (or even condoned, as far as I know,) overclocking outside of Extreme Expense^H^H^H^H Edition products.

Unofficially, the 3rd-party motherboard and chipset makers always find a way, and I have faith that they will again. Phenom has an IMC and HyperTransport instead of FSB, and you can overclock Phenoms. Where there's a will, there's a way.

I award FUDZilla 1/2 point for managing to write its first coherent article with no spelling mistakes.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
So if those assumptions are correct, this is pure stupidity from a marketing point of view.

This would surprise you?

Originally posted by: Foxery
I award FUDZilla 1/2 point for managing to write its first coherent article with no spelling mistakes.

That would be utterly hilarious, if it weren't so true.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Foxery
Officially, Intel has never "supported" (or even condoned, as far as I know,) overclocking outside of Extreme Expense^H^H^H^H Edition products.

Unofficially, the 3rd-party motherboard and chipset makers always find a way, and I have faith that they will again. Phenom has an IMC and HyperTransport instead of FSB, and you can overclock Phenoms. Where there's a will, there's a way.

I would add to this by saying that Intel has always had the ability to stifle the overclocking community if they so desired by merely doing what it would take to enforce a policy on the mobo manufacturers such that no end-user available options in the BIOS were available for overclocking (i.e. no FSB options).

Even for non-Intel chipsets they merely need put a clause in their bus licensing agreements that stipulate 3rd party chipset providers would require same of mobo makers utilizing their chipsets as well.

Legally it would be a swift end to overclocking. For those who'd do BSEL mods or pin mods Intel could likewise simply require the BIOS force a CPUID reference check against a look-up table for allowed FSB settings and viola your system either boots at stock or doesn't boot at all. BIOS mods themselves could be blocked by further onboard reference checks that the mobo makers could be required to engineer into the mobo.

We know this is true because we have plenty examples of DELL and HP managing to accomplish most of this checklist of items of their own internal strategies.

That these requirements have never been pressed across the industry is more or less all the proof that I need to believe Intel has been just fine turning a blind'ish eye towards the communities un-approved activities thus far.

Will their policy change on the low-end? Here's the litmus test...if the rumors are true and their "hands are forced by coincidence" that the non-Bloomfield platform CPU's just so happen to not have external handles in the BIOS which allow overclocking and they do not release a software program as AMD did to allow enthusiasts to overclock from the OS then you can confidently assume the whole "overclocking only works on Bloomfield" was a strategy and not a coincidence.

If AMD can release a software program to do it then surely Intel could do so as well. This will be my litmus test whether a lack of overclocking on non-Bloomfield platforms was intentional or merely happenstance.

 

[Nemesis 1]

WHAT ABOUT NEHALEM ?

1). What is Nehalems Performance at stock? If its better at the lowend than AMDs highend it doesn't matter. What Intel does with the middle range. If you can't O/C Nehalem 1066 . Your only higher performance option in a higher priced Nehalem.
2). Prices of Nehalem ? HEAR IS HOW I REMEMBER IT. Intel introduced us to cheap affordable 2core high performance C2D than followed that up with cheap QC2D. Why would intel leave a price structure they set up? AND certainly didn't bring cheap affordable X2 3800 to market. Only after they were lowend cpus did this happen =C2D.

I read alot of this stuff info is great. But hype based on OH! NO ! NEHALEM doesn't O/C.

Remindeds me so much of AEG stuff its sickening. Even in the NV ATI threads. The smell of AEG exist. I got burned on the R600 info so I stay out of it. Much like the AMD guys got burned on K10 info. But this time I think ATI may have NV by the balls. I am sure AMD had something to offer ATI in improvements.

 

[Foxery]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
...
Legally it would be a swift end to overclocking. For those who'd do BSEL mods or pin mods Intel could likewise simply require the BIOS force a CPUID reference check against a look-up table for allowed FSB settings and viola your system either boots at stock or doesn't boot at all.

Interesting point. I don't take their actions or inaction as "proof" one way or the other.

If I worked there, I would push the marketing value of word-of-mouth. You know who's great for spreading free advertising? Enthusiasts! We'll also badmouth them if they burn us, and jump ship in a heartbeat if AMD suits our needs. I also don't believe that we are bad for profits when we buy cheaper CPUs; we buy more of them because we upgrade more often than Mom with her Dell.

The time & money it would take to change these circuits and policies isn't worth it to them.

If AMD can release a software program to do it then surely Intel could do so as well. This will be my litmus test whether a lack of overclocking on non-Bloomfield platforms was intentional or merely happenstance.

When exactly did AMD release this? Was it an attempt to draw in enthusiast buyers when sales were down? Intel, by contrast, doesn't need to go out of their way to help us in order to make money.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Foxery
When exactly did AMD release this? Was it an attempt to draw in enthusiast buyers when sales were down? Intel, by contrast, doesn't need to go out of their way to help us in order to make money.

He's talking about AMD's Overdrive, that only works on the newest AMD chipsets, IIRC.

edit: And it was an attempt by AMD to draw in noob overclockers, who always seem to be scared of their BIOS's.

 

[Syzygies]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
I would add to this by saying that Intel has always had the ability to stifle the overclocking community if they so desired by merely doing what it would take to enforce a policy on the mobo manufacturers such that no end-user available options in the BIOS were available for overclocking (i.e. no FSB options).

I was very surprised, buying a VW GTI VR6, to learn that the first mod enthusiasts made didn't get oil on their hands: They swapped in third-party firmware. And this was back in 1999.

So wouldn't this simply move the arena of play, into trading BIOS hacks? Most people would be carriers only, like the current OSx86 Hackintosh scene.

To lock this sort of thing out, one would need to vet, encrypt the BIOS, as the iPhone does with apps. And the iPhone gets hacked. Unlike iPhone software, people generally stick to one BIOS once it works for them.

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Why would they want to do this? The overclockers are only a small margin in their business, but look at all the buzz the overclockers generate...

To make an analogy, casino blackjack is huge, much bigger than it would have been, because the public understands that the house can be beat. Few people actually count cards, and those that do get harassed. Intel is smarter than a casino, but I wouldn't count on this reasoning. Greed is not always enlightened, sometimes it misses the big picture.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: Syzygies
I was very surprised, buying a VW GTI VR6, to learn that the first mod enthusiasts made didn't get oil on their hands: They swapped in third-party firmware. And this was back in 1999.

So wouldn't this simply move the arena of play, into trading BIOS hacks? Most people would be carriers only, like the current OSx86 Hackintosh scene.

To lock this sort of thing out, one would need to vet, encrypt the BIOS, as the iPhone does with apps. And the iPhone gets hacked. Unlike iPhone software, people generally stick to one BIOS once it works for them.

the bios is irrelevant because it only does what the cpu allows. if the cpu is altered such that the clocks fail to lock at anything except for the fused ratio, the bios can't do anything about it.

so IDC is correct in his first point regarding intel's ability to stop overclocking, but the second point is incorrect because intel is not dependent on the mobo manufacturers in any way if they wanted to kill oc, they would simply do it on the cpu itself, end of story.

 

[Syzygies]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
I would add to this by saying that Intel has always had the ability to stifle the overclocking community if they so desired by merely doing what it would take to enforce a policy on the mobo manufacturers such that no end-user available options in the BIOS were available for overclocking (i.e. no FSB options).

Originally posted by: dmens
the bios is irrelevant because it only does what the cpu allows.

I was responding to Idontcare's assertion that Intel could have done this all along. If Intel reduces chip functionality, of course the BIOS can't override that. But simply putting licensing restrictions on the BIOS wouldn't prevent hacking.

 

[Foxery]

As long as the CPU relies on an external clock generator, (i.e. Intel doesn't go crazy and stick a chunk of oscillating crystal on the die,) you can speed up the clock. The IMC and QuickPath interface may make the chip less flexible as part of its design, but this would more likely be a side effect than an intentional effort by Intel to restrict functionality.

Anyway, we're reading way too far into a vague article from an unreliable source!

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Why would they want to do this? The overclockers are only a small margin in their business, but look at all the buzz the overclockers generate, because those are usually the enthusiasts who will spread the word about a awesome CPU. I doubt intel loses a lot of money because some people buy a $60 abit ip35-e and a $70 e2160 and overclock it to e8400 speeds, although they could afford a e8400 if they had to.

So if those assumptions are correct, this is pure stupidity from a marketing point of view.

For the same reason content companies kill themselves with bad DRM...
Sometimes companies do really stupid things (PR wise) for a few more bucks...

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: Phynaz
I once read an article on why it would be impossile to lock a cpu clock.

This was around Pentium 1 days, I'm going to see if I can find it again.

It's only impossible if there's an external clock but if the cpu had and internal clock, then it would be possible.

 

[Modelworks]

On one side there is Intel who could increase profits by forcing people to buy faster cpu rather than overclock.
On the other is all the companies that make their living off people who overclock.

It would be bad for the hardware market in general if Intel did make overclocking impossible in the future.

If Intel had wanted to they could have placed a clock locking method in the current line of chips, its not a hard thing to do and is done on many other brands of cpu.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Foxery
As long as the CPU relies on an external clock generator, (i.e. Intel doesn't go crazy and stick a chunk of oscillating crystal on the die,) you can speed up the clock.

Very true.

Anyway, we're reading way too far into a vague article from an unreliable source!

Probably even more true. I seriously think that Intel is discussing it, though. Whether or not they try it, we'll all just have to wait and see, I guess.

Originally posted by: Foxery
its not a hard thing to do and is done on many other brands of cpu.

Which other brands are clock-locking their CPU's?