VR-Zone : Sandy Bridge-E Limited BCLK

[dma0991]

Exclusive: Intel's future base clock options unveiled

We were disappointed to learn that Intel will only offer a single base clock option for Ivy Bridge beyond the 100MHz of Sandy Bridge, name 133MHz. For those of you that hoped to be able to overclock Ivy Bridge to your heart's content, well, it ain't gonna happen. Apparently Intel is worried that Ivy Bridge will compete with its LGA-2011 platform if it was to add more base clock options and as such things aren't set to improve much over Sandy Bridge.

As for Sandy Bridge-E, well it shares one component with the upcoming Ivy Bridge platform and you can see it quite clearly in the diagram above which is from a YouTube video that we've embedded at the bottom. The little chip marked CK505 at the bottom is the clock generator and this is what controls the base clock. As you can see there's a mention of a PEG/DMI ratio mechanism and this is what allows several different base clocks.

Unlike Ivy Bridge, Intel has enabled several options for Sandy Bridge-E and we're hearing that we can expect base clock frequencies of 100, 125, 166, 200 and 250MHz if memory serves. This might still change before the launch of the Waimea Bay platform as Intel tweak things to work as well as possible for overclockers. Still, with four rather large jumps between each of the base clocks we have a feeling that the overclocking community isn't going to be impressed. We might see the X58 platform live on for quite some time next year, despite the fact that many are feeling like it's a platform of the past already.
​

Somewhat related news :
Exclusive: Sandy Bridge-E now expected to launch in November, X79 chipset getting further feature cuts

 

[sm625]

250 BLCK ... sounds like LN2 time.

 

[996GT2]

Exclusive: Intel's future base clock options unveiled

Somewhat related news :
Exclusive: Sandy Bridge-E now expected to launch in November, X79 chipset getting further feature cuts

The combination of adjustable BCLK and unlocked multiplier in the K series SB-E chips gives you a good amount of flexibility in choosing clock speeds, though.

For example, if you wanted 3.1 GHz you could use 100 BCLK * 31, and if you wanted something a bit higher you could use 125 BCLK*25=3125 MHz or 166*19=3154 MHz.

 

[Idontcare]

Apparently Intel is worried that Ivy Bridge will compete with its LGA-2011 platform if it was to add more base clock options and as such things aren't set to improve much over Sandy Bridge.

This is why we all need a strong showing from AMD and bulldozer.

If Intel's accountants have their way they are going to segment the market to kingdom come and introduce artificial technology barriers between each of them to ensure the consumer has as limited cross-platform mobility as possible unless they pay the piper.

It's dick moves like this by Intel that rightfully earn it the scorn that AMD fanboys heap upon it.

 

[dma0991]

The combination of adjustable BCLK and unlocked multiplier in the K series SB-E chips gives you a good amount of flexibility in choosing clock speeds, though.

It does have more flexibility compared to the regular SB but I am wondering why impose such limitations? Wouldn't increasing and decreasing BCLK in 1MHz steps would be better in terms of fine tuning? What advantages are there in setting a few BCLK settings as opposed to 1MHz steps?

Simplifying overclocking works for SB but with the SB-E, it would be the hardcore enthusiasts who would buy it and I doubt they would want anything less than total control of the settings.

 

[Ken g6]

What advantages are there in setting a few BCLK settings as opposed to 1MHz steps?

My guess is it's related to memory and/or PCIe speed. Recall that even on chips with an FSB, you may have to change your memory multiplier to a sub-optimal value to get the CPU overclock you want. I would imagine that motherboard manufacturers will still allow small BCLK changes, like they do today with SB, and that could give you your finer control.

 

[happy medium]

This is why we all need a strong showing from AMD and bulldozer.

If Intel's accountants have their way they are going to segment the market to kingdom come and introduce artificial technology barriers between each of them to ensure the consumer has as limited cross-platform mobility as possible unless they pay the piper.

It's dick moves like this by Intel that rightfully earn it the scorn that AMD fanboys heap upon it.

I totally agree. This sucks!

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Aren't you supposed to NOT use BCLK over-clocking in SB, anyway? I don't get what's the problem if it still has the Turbo multipliers, as long as they offer them in unlocked versions.

 

[SHAQ]

I was waiting for 2011 or IB for an upgrade, but now I'm leaning towards getting a 2500k and a 32+ lane PCI-e mobo. It doesn't seem like there is anything better coming on the horizon.

 

[toyota]

I was waiting for 2011 or IB for an upgrade, but now I'm leaning towards getting a 2500k and a 32+ lane PCI-e mobo. It doesn't seem like there is anything better coming on the horizon.

why on earth would you upgrade to that from what you have now? at the very least you should wait until Sandy Bridge E comes out.

 

[psolord]

Aren't you supposed to NOT use BCLK over-clocking in SB, anyway? I don't get what's the problem if it still has the Turbo multipliers, as long as they offer them in unlocked versions.

Actually I am wondering about the same thing.

Who gives a flying crap if there will only be 100 and 133Mhz BCLK options? We only need the unlocked multi anyway. The article does not say anything about that.

Now if Intel decides to give unlocked multi, only to 500$ models, they can shove them as far as I am concerned.

In any case, if a 2600K replacement does come, at the same price point, with unlocked multi AND 100/133BCLK options, we will actually have MORE options for overclocking.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Actually I am wondering about the same thing.

Who gives a flying crap if there will only be 100 and 133Mhz BCLK options? We only need the unlocked multi anyway. The article does not say anything about that.

Now if Intel decides to give unlocked multi, only to 500$ models, they can shove them as far as I am concerned.

In any case, if a 2600K replacement does come, at the same price point, with unlocked multi AND 100/133BCLK options, we will actually have MORE options for overclocking.

Yeah, I don't really get the (fake) outrage. Sure, you won't be able to get a CPU clock of 4.65GHz instead of 4.6GHz, but it doesn't change the general picture at all. It's the same story as SB: you OC using the Turbo multiplier.

You wouldn't want to use BCLK OCing in the first place because of platform instability.

 

[Rifter]

Yeah, I don't really get the (fake) outrage. Sure, you won't be able to get a CPU clock of 4.65GHz instead of 4.6GHz, but it doesn't change the general picture at all. It's the same story as SB: you OC using the Turbo multiplier.

You wouldn't want to use BCLK OCing in the first place because of platform instability.

except the K versions will be $500+ just like the unlocked 1366 chips.

If they have decent Bclock overclocking(like 5 or 10mhz incriments) then ill jump on a 4 core or 6 core multi locked chip and overclock the hell out of it. If not i'll wait till Ivy and get a $300 K chip.

Im just happy they are not locking out bclock like some of the latest rumors.

Also im sure bclock overclocking will be stable or intel would not have unlocked it.

 

[AdamK47]

Yeah, I don't really get the (fake) outrage. Sure, you won't be able to get a CPU clock of 4.65GHz instead of 4.6GHz, but it doesn't change the general picture at all. It's the same story as SB: you OC using the Turbo multiplier.

You wouldn't want to use BCLK OCing in the first place because of platform instability.

What do you mean by "OC using the Tubo multiplier"? Overclocking with turbo enabled? This will be one of the first things I disable when I get a 3960X. I will also be using a ~200MHz base clock if this article is true. That's with an already multiplier unlocked CPU.

 

[AdamK47]

except the k versions will be $500+ just like the unlocked 1366 chips.

If they have decent bclock overclocking(like 5 or 10mhz incriments) then ill jump on a 4 core or 6 core multi locked chip and overclock the hell out of it. If not i'll wait till ivy and get a $300 k chip.

Im just happy they are not locking out bclock like some of the latest rumors.

Also im sure bclock overclocking will be stable or intel would not have unlocked it.

"k" = 1156/1155
"x" = 1366/2011

 

[StrangerGuy]

except the K versions will be $500+ just like the unlocked 1366 chips.

If they have decent Bclock overclocking(like 5 or 10mhz incriments) then ill jump on a 4 core or 6 core multi locked chip and overclock the hell out of it. If not i'll wait till Ivy and get a $300 K chip.

Im just happy they are not locking out bclock like some of the latest rumors.

Also im sure bclock overclocking will be stable or intel would not have unlocked it.

I'm not chip engineer but I'm pretty sure the choices of BCLK are in this way so that the multipiers other than the core clock are kept exactly at what is needed to keep the whole chip stable.

If you are expecting it to be the same as S775 1MHz FSB incremental OCing I'm afraid you will be disappointed.

 

[Rifter]

I'm not chip engineer but I'm pretty sure the choices of BCLK are in this way so that the multipiers other than the core clock are kept exactly at what is needed to keep the whole chip stable.

If you are expecting it to be the same as S775 1MHz FSB incremental OCing I'm afraid you will be disappointed.

actually being the same as 1366 1mhz overclocking would be ideal, since it is replacing 1366 afterall.

 

[Rifter]

"k" = 1156/1155
"x" = 1366/2011

noted, sorry for the mistake 🙂

 

[Idontcare]

Yeah, I don't really get the (fake) outrage. Sure, you won't be able to get a CPU clock of 4.65GHz instead of 4.6GHz, but it doesn't change the general picture at all. It's the same story as SB: you OC using the Turbo multiplier.

You wouldn't want to use BCLK OCing in the first place because of platform instability.

The reason people want more BCLK options is because Sandy Bridge multipliers top out at 57x and people do hit this limit.

BCLK lets them get more bang for the buck in the multiplier dept. Top-end OC's with 2600K are around 6GHz not because the chip won't clock any higher but because that is as far as they can get with a 57x multiplier plus the 6-8MHz BCLK overclock they can wiggle out of the P67/Z68 platforms.

That's been acceptable thus far because the 2600K is mainstream enthusiast, Intel isn't expecting people to pay $1k for the CPU and the people aren't expecting unlimited OC'ing.

But the SBE extreme overclockers will expect that, and Intel knows this and needs to deliver either higher multipliers in the SBE models (unlikely as this seems to be hardcoded into the architecture) or they need to enable higher BCLKs (the likely option provided enough parts are binning as 133MHz BCLK capable).

 

[AdamK47]

actually being the same as 1366 1mhz overclocking would be ideal, since it is replacing 1366 afterall.

I have a feeling that people will still be able to do 1MHz increments with X79.

 

[grkM3]

I hope they give us 1mhz increments,that way we can also push the max out of our ram with as tightest timings as possible.

I can bench up to 105-106 bclk but thats it for stability,heck Id be happy if they gave us 133bclk in 1mhz increments.

133x57 should be plenty and the ability to run the ram at 3500 mhz will be plenty for a while untill we get ddr4

 

[Idontcare]

Its a lot easier to validate functionality for a few specific BCLK's versus attempting to validate the system across a discrete continuum in 1MHz increments.

I know which of those two I'd be trying to argue we validate if I were a mobo engineer operating on a limited budget and a fixed timeframe for product release.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

except the K versions will be $500+ just like the unlocked 1366 chips.

If they have decent Bclock overclocking(like 5 or 10mhz incriments) then ill jump on a 4 core or 6 core multi locked chip and overclock the hell out of it. If not i'll wait till Ivy and get a $300 K chip.

Im just happy they are not locking out bclock like some of the latest rumors.

Also im sure bclock overclocking will be stable or intel would not have unlocked it.

I'm referring to Ivy Bridge primarily. This news story talks about limited BCLK OCing, but then that also came up in the Ivy Bridge discussion. The best way to over-clock with a platform that is so heavily integrated is to use the Turbo multipliers, especially on the unlocked models since you'll probably be able to go to 5GHz+ on average.

What do you mean by "OC using the Tubo multiplier"? Overclocking with turbo enabled? This will be one of the first things I disable when I get a 3960X. I will also be using a ~200MHz base clock if this article is true. That's with an already multiplier unlocked CPU.

All over-clocking on Sandy Bridge (not sure about SB-E) is made using the Turbo Boost. On the normal Core i5 models, this allows you to OC to the highest multiplier Intel has limited the chips to, and can set frequency depending on the number of cores in active load. For example, you can take a locked Core i5 2400 to 3.8GHz on all cores, with the speed being one bin (100MHz) higher each time you remove a core from the equation. Using only one active core that means 4.1GHz. For the unlocked models, Intel simply unlocked the Turbo multiplier in the chips and allows you to select whatever you want. Turbo Boost is what allows Sandy Bridge to over-clock, which is why Intel never released an unlocked Core i3.

 

[Soccerman06]

Another reason for me to wait for Hanswell. Hopefully Hanswell wont be as restrictive as current intel chips.

 

[formulav8]

Increasing the bclk also overclocks the L3 cache and memory controller right? So having those dividers would be a good thing since now you can't do much more than 3-5mhz increase anyways? Or am I way off? 😕