Did intel deliberately gimp overclocking on SB?

[Maximilian]

Did they deliberately limit it to K series only CPU's so we would buy them or was it an architecturally unavoidable thing and they threw us a bone with K series chips?

 

[Hulk]

I think I'm dense because I don't understand your questions. AFAIK SB is multilocked except for k series. That's how they were designed. If you're asking where along the manufacturing process the locking occurs I don't know? Or do you mean do all the SB cores come unlocked and then they are locked? Or are they all unlocked and then later in the process get locked?

That is an interesting question actually.

- Mark

 

[richierich1212]

Yes. Why buy K-series if you can just overclock the cheaper cpus?

 

[richierich1212]

I would've love to overclock my G530. But nope, I can't.

 

[aphelion02]

100% artificial. A 4.5ghz 2C4T i3 would kill too much high end sales, especially for gamers.

 

[SonicIce]

if bulldozer came out and kicked ass i think intel would suddenly "remember" how to overclock

 

[VirtualLarry]

Yes, Intel gimped all of their "non-K" CPUs. It was a sneaky move putting the PLL clocking on-chip, for all of the peripherals.

 

[Smartazz]

On the other hand, when has Intel ever released reasonably priced unlocked chips? Before the i7 875k, weren't all their unlocked chips the $1000+ extreme edition processors? That's gotta count for something. Hopefully they don't start raising prices since ~$225 for a 2500K is a good deal.

 

[Denithor]

100% artificial. A 4.5ghz 2C4T i3 would kill too much high end sales, especially for gamers.

This.

Overclocking was never something they supported, with the mentioned exception of the $1000 EE series chips at the very top end of each family.

It was the motherboard manufacturers who 'unlocked' the fsb speed so we could overclock. Keep in mind this was done from the outside of the cpu, now that the base clock speed is inside the cpu Intel decided to lock it up to prevent consumers from getting more than we pay for.

 

[GoStumpy]

On the other hand, when has Intel ever released reasonably priced unlocked chips? Before the i7 875k, weren't all their unlocked chips the $1000+ extreme edition processors? That's gotta count for something. Hopefully they don't start raising prices since ~$225 for a 2500K is a good deal.

Pretty sure the Celeron 300A was unlocked?

 

[Smartazz]

This.

Overclocking was never something they supported, with the mentioned exception of the $1000 EE series chips at the very top end of each family.

It was the motherboard manufacturers who 'unlocked' the fsb speed so we could overclock. Keep in mind this was done from the outside of the cpu, now that the base clock speed is inside the cpu Intel decided to lock it up to prevent consumers from getting more than we pay for.

I believe their rationale was to prevent customers from being ripped off. Builders would presumably use a cheaper chip, change the multiplier and sell it for more. This sounds like BS, but that was the reasoning Intel gave iirc.

 

[fuzzymath10]

Pretty sure the Celeron 300A was unlocked?

Only unlocked in the sense that the FSB was typically increased from 66 to 100 to result in a 50% overclock. Very few Intel CPUs starting from that generation had unlocked multipliers.

Considering that a 2500k is more than reasonably priced, I think the overclocking offerings are quite fair.

 

[bononos]

Pretty sure the Celeron 300A was unlocked?

Nope, it was multiplier locked. Overclockers had to resort bumping up the fsb. The made-in-Mal chips could take a 100mhz bus (450 oc) hence the phenomenal oc.

 

[Diogenes2]

Even though Intel encourages overclocking with unlocked multipliers, the warranty still does not cover overclocked chips.. They even publish overclocking utility software.. Go figure...

 

[SomeGuyInAR]

I suppose they did do it intentionally, but I don't have any anger about it for one single reason: they also released very affordable unlocked chips too. For $30 more than the 2600, you get an i7-2600K that can easily top 4.5ghz without major headaches. This is no different than Chevy de-tuning the Corvette's engine and putting it in a cheaper Camaro. Nor is it much different than AMD crippling a 6-core chip to sell it as a quad core.

All in all, I'm thrilled with the cost/performance ratio of the Sandy Bridge lineup and I don't begrudge Intel from making a modest profit off the desire to overclock.

 

[Idontcare]

Did they deliberately limit it to K series only CPU's so we would buy them or was it an architecturally unavoidable thing and they threw us a bone with K series chips?

Its pretty clear that they could have made ALL their sandy cpus be "K" or multiplier unlocked cpu's.

That they chose to not do that, that they chose to only release a 2500K and 2600K (pre SB-E) tells you that the lower-priced SKU's were multiplier locked intentionally to keep OC'ing out of that price-point segment.

 

[richierich1212]

Nor is it much different than AMD crippling a 6-core chip to sell it as a quad core.

All in all, I'm thrilled with the cost/performance ratio of the Sandy Bridge lineup and I don't begrudge Intel from making a modest profit off the desire to overclock.

How is AMD Selling a 6-core as a 4-core crippling? lol. You can unlock them.

 

[Maximilian]

Yes. Why buy K-series if you can just overclock the cheaper cpus?

I think some people would still have bought one, good and cheap multiplier unlocked CPUs have always been a rarity.

I suppose they did do it intentionally, but I don't have any anger about it for one single reason: they also released very affordable unlocked chips too. For $30 more than the 2600, you get an i7-2600K that can easily top 4.5ghz without major headaches. This is no different than Chevy de-tuning the Corvette's engine and putting it in a cheaper Camaro. Nor is it much different than AMD crippling a 6-core chip to sell it as a quad core.

All in all, I'm thrilled with the cost/performance ratio of the Sandy Bridge lineup and I don't begrudge Intel from making a modest profit off the desire to overclock.

Was wondering when a car analogy would show up

Its pretty clear that they could have made ALL their sandy cpus be "K" or multiplier unlocked cpu's.

That they chose to not do that, that they chose to only release a 2500K and 2600K (pre SB-E) tells you that the lower-priced SKU's were multiplier locked intentionally to keep OC'ing out of that price-point segment.

Yeah i mean the baseclock/FSB method of overclocking though, i dont remember a time when multipliers were upwards unlocked by default. The trend seems to be to put as much stuff on the CPU/package as possible, the first thing i remembered was the math co-processor, then cache, then the memory controller etc etc now the thing that controls the baseclock is on there. Does that have architectural benefits or it is specifically to stop baseclock overclocking? It does fit with the trend of stuffing more things onto the CPU over time.

 

[Smartazz]

Its pretty clear that they could have made ALL their sandy cpus be "K" or multiplier unlocked cpu's.

That they chose to not do that, that they chose to only release a 2500K and 2600K (pre SB-E) tells you that the lower-priced SKU's were multiplier locked intentionally to keep OC'ing out of that price-point segment.

How many people could possibly be buying low end CPUs then overclocking them? Enthusiasts are a small market, budget minded enthusiasts are even smaller. I guess profit is profit, even if there isn't that much to gain from doing this.

 

[drizek]

Did Intel artificially gimp...?

Yes.

Pretty much any Intel CPU under $1000 is artificially gimped, and even above that there's no guarantee.

 

[drizek]

Nor is it much different than AMD crippling a 6-core chip to sell it as a quad core.

AMD does not artificially cripple their CPUs. I mean, on an individual basis, yes, some of the quads are capable of running 6-cores, but they aren't worth the trouble to find from AMDs POV.

Another example is the Phenom II X3, which, when it came out, were pretty much all just artificially crippled quads. Once the market accepted the concept of a triple core CPU though, AMD started selling genuinely defective parts as 3-cores.

Edit: Also, look at Bulldozer. They are 100% naturally bad. No artificial gimping involved. Seriously, they give you the CPU as good as they can make it.

 

[soccerballtux]

I believe their rationale was to prevent customers from being ripped off. Builders would presumably use a cheaper chip, change the multiplier and sell it for more. This sounds like BS, but that was the reasoning Intel gave iirc.

and you believe them? swallowing the blue pill I see...

 

[Idontcare]

How many people could possibly be buying low end CPUs then overclocking them? Enthusiasts are a small market, budget minded enthusiasts are even smaller. I guess profit is profit, even if there isn't that much to gain from doing this.

Its not how may are buying them, its a question of how many 2500K/2600K will elect to not be 2500K/2600K customers and instead buy the even cheaper models.

Its not about locking the low-budget guys out of OC'ing, its about locking the OC'ers out of the low-budget CPUs.

 

[tigersty1e]

the core2duo series is the last of the best overclocking gave us.

taking a 50 dollar processor up to 3.5 ghz (beyond the $300 chips) was the most fun any of us had.

 

[paperwastage]

the core2duo series is the last of the best overclocking gave us.

taking a 50 dollar processor up to 3.5 ghz (beyond the $300 chips) was the most fun any of us had.

um, $220 2500k + 5.+ghz OC == $999 990x? (well, before the 3960x came out)