Indeed, an Intel representative just twitted happily about it, and indirectly hinted the feature is here to stay.
It should be clear by now that even Intel is divided on this, with inside forces pulling in opposite directions. I strongly believe mobo makers looked for some kind of signal from Intel (or lack of reaction) before boasting BCLK OC for non-K processors. Unfortunately Intel was undecided.
How can you be sure that's not one of the reasons why they decoupled BCLK base clock from other clock domains?
And sorry to burst the bubble of those thinking Intel won't react if the competition shows up with a competitive product for a similar price. Either new 'K' CPUs, improved BCLK overclock capability, higher core count for mainstream or more affordable HEDT, they have plenty of ways to respond.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Intel will indeed react against potential competition in the future but with means that dont mess up their sku segmentation like allowing non-K overclocking. They can either move 1 tier up their whole lineup with cannonlake (Celeron 2c/2t, Pentium 2c/4, i3 4c/4t, i5 4c/8t, i7 to anything that doesnt cannibalize low end Skylake-E, etc.) and take a dump against Zen just fine. Backtracking 2 times isnt something Intel ever did, and it wont happen with Kaby Lake.
I told you where the issues come from but from your response indicates you have not understood. Sure they could enable BCLK OC across KabyLake. They could have done the same for Skylake and/or produced every processor unlocked, but they didn't.Sorry but your own post indicates the issues don't come from Intel's implementation. They decoupled BCLK base clock from other clock domains with Skylake in the first place. So there you go, I think there might be other reasons for this move, but they could enable BCLK OCs with across the Kabylake lineup if they want to.
Yep, pretty much on the ball. Next post after thatI saw that, but I wonder if BCLK overclocking will be limited to K SKUs?
Yes, it doesn't make that much sense do that when the K chips already have the unlocked multiplier, but that is what Intel did with Haswell and strap overclocking.
EDIT: Notice what it says under superscript 1 in the foot notes. Yep, Pretty sure that feature will be limited to K or X SKUs only.
Don't read too much into it. I bet non-K Skylake gets improved BCLK overclocking too.
http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...d-this-desktop-chip.aspx#.VrysR2tYcBc.twitterHere's Why Intel Corp. Just Killed This Desktop Chip Feature
It's all about market segmentation.
[snip...]
Never said they will do it, but technically old-school BCLK OCing is possible again from Skylake onwards and it would be nice to see Intel's approval on this. And again, there's more to their recent move (microcode) than Intel's product segmentation.
Hey, easy, I'm not looking for a fight. You used the phrase "just twitted" so I presumed, wrongly perhaps, that you might not have been aware of the latest developments. It seems to me that Intel has made up its mind against the non-K BCLK OC, are you saying something different? Maybe I don't understand you.Did you read my original post? How does the December date negate anything I wrote?
What this whole BCLK fiasco did for me is finally push me into a HEDT system, which probably plays right into Intel's hands, but oh well. Just couldn't justify paying $419 for an unlocked quad when the 5820K is out there for less than $375.
6700K is a really great CPU with unparalleled ST performance, but I felt the value proposition of the 5820K was better given the price differential, and there's ample evidence that most games will use the cores moving forward.Funny, I just moved away from HEDT to the mainstream for one of my systems. Will be looking to hop back on board HEDT with SKL-E, but for now both of my gaming systems are 6700K-powered.
6700K is a really great CPU with unparalleled ST performance, but I felt the value proposition of the 5820K was better given the price differential, and there's ample evidence that most games will use the cores moving forward.
I used "just" as in "only", it was a slightly ironic reply, they did not promise BCLK oc but an Intel rep could not help boasting about it.Hey, easy, I'm not looking for a fight. You used the phrase "just twitted" so I presumed, wrongly perhaps, that you might not have been aware of the latest developments. It seems to me that Intel has made up its mind against the non-K BCLK OC, are you saying something different? Maybe I don't understand you.
They sure fooled me, I was all in on the non-K OC.I used "just" as in "only", it was a slightly ironic reply, they did not promise BCLK oc but an Intel rep could not help boasting about it.
Indeed, they made up their mind now, but back in December they seemed undecided, as if some people in the company had actually considered allowing this.
6700K is a really great CPU with unparalleled ST performance, but I felt the value proposition of the 5820K was better given the price differential, and there's ample evidence that most games will use the cores moving forward.
By the time any significant amount of games utilize more than 4 cores, x99 will be what a core2 duo is today.
Games are developed for the mainstream. The mainstream still has more dual cores than it does hex core enthusiast grade CPU's.
For anything to change, Intel need to release mainstream hex core CPU's. Even when they do, it will take many years for the average PC (of which games are designed for) to contain a hex core CPU, since people don't upgrade immediately.
Games are developed for mainstream gaming rigs. Which, these days, given the requirements of AAA 2015 releases, are pretty-much all quad-core, or at the very least, quad-thread.
I agree, that we really need to see more cores than just a quad-core in Intel's mainstream CPU lineup, before we see massive software adoption of more than 4 cores, or possibly 8 threads.
Most AAA games are designed for the 8 core Jaguar inside of the consoles
Review of the Club 3D displayport to Hdmi 2.0 adapter for those looking for it for their Skylake Nucs.
http://nucblog.net/2016/02/club-3d-displayport-to-hdmi-2-0-adapter-connects-skylake-nuc-to-a-uhd-tv/
Due to unprecedented demand, Intels latest Skylake processors with unlocked multiplier were significantly overpriced late last year. However, it would seem that more units are coming into retail as the popular Core i7-6700K and Core i5-6600K CPUs are becoming more readily available from multiple stores. As a result, actual retail prices of the chips have dropped in the U.S. retail in the recent weeks. Nonetheless, the most powerful Skylake-S is still listed above its suggested retail price.
Supply of Skylake-S Seems To Getting Better
Intels top-of-the-range processor for mainstream enthusiasts (before they make the step up to HEDT platforms), the Core i7-6700K (four cores with Hyper-Threading, 4.0 GHz/4.20 GHz, 8 MB cache, Intel HD Graphics 530 core, unlocked multiplier), has an MSRP of $350 according to Intels ARK. About six weeks ago, this processor in the US cost more than $420 at some stores, and was frequently in and out of stock of the biggest retailers.
However, this seems to be changing. Amazon currently (2/14) lists the Core i7-6700K for $365 but the chip is not in stock. According to CamelCamelCamel, a price-tracker that monitors Amazon and its partners, the Core i7-6700K was available from Amazon for $365 earlier this week, marking a significant shift in price...
For the year, high-end Core i7 microprocessors and our K SKUs for gaming, both set all-time volume records, leading to our rich product mix, Mr. Krzanich told investors and analysts.